Matthew 19

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: "Moses," says He, "because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so" -for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made them male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was.

Against Marcion Book 4

4–6

See a teacher's wisdom. I mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him.

But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women.

But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her.

And see how He saith, "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female," that is, from one root they sprung, and into one body came they together, "for the twain shall be one flesh."

After this, to make it a fearful thing to find fault with this lawgiving, and to confirm the law, He said not, "Sever not therefore, nor put asunder," but, "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

But if thou put forward Moses, I tell thee of Moses' Lord, and together with this, I rely upon the time also. For God at the beginning made them male and female; and this law is older (though it seem to have been now introduced by me), and with much earnestness established. For not merely did He bring the woman to the man, but also commanded to leave father and mother. And neither did He make it a law for him merely to come to the woman, but also "to cleave to her," by the form of the language intimating that they might not be severed. And not even with this was He satisfied, but sought also for another greater union, "for the twain," He saith, "shall be one flesh."

Then after He had recited the ancient law, which was brought in both by deeds and by words, and shown it to be worthy of respect because of the giver, with authority after that He Himself too interprets and gives the law, saying, "So that they are no more twain, but one flesh." Like then as to sever flesh is a horrible thing, so also to divorce a wife is unlawful. And He stayed not at this, but brought in God also by saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," showing that the act was both against nature, and against law; against nature, because one flesh is dissevered; against law, because that when God hath joined and commanded it not to be divided, ye conspire to do this.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62

(V. 4.) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? This is written in the beginning of Genesis. But in saying male and female, he pointed towards monogamous marriages. For he did not say males and females, which was sought after due to the repudiation of the former, but male and female, so that the bond of one spouse might be established.

Commentary on Matthew

But He so frames His answer as to evade their snare. He brings in the testimony of Holy Writ, and the law of nature, and opposing God's first sentence to this second, He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? This is written in the beginning of Genesis. This teaches that second marriages are to be avoided, for He said not male and females, which was what was sought by the putting away of the first, but, male and female, implying only one tie of wedlock.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

4–6

(Cont. Faust. xix. 29.) Behold now out of the books of Moses it is proved to the Jews that a wife may not be put away. For they thought that they were doing according to the purport of Moses' law when they did put them away. This also we learn hence by the testimony of Christ Himself, that it was God who made it thus, and joined them male and female; which when the Manichæans deny, they are condemned, resisting the Gospel of Christ.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

What then does Christ say? He shows that monogamy is the work and law of Him Who created us at the beginning. For at the beginning, He says, God joined together one man and one woman. So it is not right that one man should be joined to many women, or one woman to many men. But as they were joined together at the beginning, so they should remain, not sundering the marital union without good cause. Jesus did not say, "It is I Who made them male and female," not wanting to vex the Pharisees; but He phrased it more indefinitely, "He Who made them."

Commentary on Matthew

If then God created the male and female out of one, to this end that they should be one, why then henceforth were not they born man and wife at one birth, as it is with certain insects? Because God created male and female for the continuance of the species, yet is He ever a lover of chastity, and promoter of continence. Therefore did He not follow this pattern in all kinds, to the end that, if any man choose to marry, he may know what is, according to the first disposition of the creation, the condition of man and wife; but if he choose not to marry, he shall not be under necessity to marry by the circumstances of his birth, lest he should by his continence be the destruction of the other who was not willing to be continent; for which same cause God forbids that after being joined in wedlock one should separate if the other be unwilling.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Therefore the answer follows: who answering said to them. The Lord gives the best manner of responding: because when someone asks in order to learn, the truth should be told at once; but to one who asks in order to bring a charge, the truth should not be said immediately, but first certain things should be said that cannot be denied. Therefore the Lord first inquires about the law; hence first he takes up the words of Scripture; secondly, he shows how they are relevant to the question; thirdly, he draws the principal conclusion. And regarding the first he does three things. First he shows the companionship of male and female, which God instituted; secondly, the affection which he implanted; thirdly, the manner in which he joined them. He intends to prove that the union of male and female was instituted by God. Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning made them male and female? For this is read in Genesis 1:27: and God created man to his image and likeness. This is not to be understood as some understood it, that first he made man male, and afterwards female, and then separated them; but first he made one man, and in him he made that from which the woman would come. But why did the Lord will it to be done in this way, namely that the multitude of men should come from man and woman? I answer, so that it would be signified that the form of marriage is from God. Likewise so that they would love each other more. But then Chrysostom asks why he does not always do it this way, that man and woman are born at the same time. He answers that if it were so, marriage would seem to be a necessity. And because the Lord wills that using marriage be lawful, or not using it, and that it not be necessary, he first created male and female, to signify that marriage was lawful; afterwards, however, he allowed a male to be born without a female, and conversely, so that they would have the free choice of both using marriage and not using it. According to this, a twofold error is excluded. For some said that marriage was not from God: and this is excluded, because if he made them male and female, and it is clear that he made nothing in vain, therefore neither any of these things, and not except for the companionship of marriage. Others said that if man had not sinned, God would not have made woman, but rather men would have been multiplied in another way; but this is nothing, because they were created before sin. And he says in the singular male and female, so that one man should have one woman.

Commentary on Matthew

Let them see to that, who, among the rest of their perversities, teach the disjoining of the "one flesh in twain; " denying Him who, after borrowing the female from the male, recombined between themselves, in the matrimonial computation, the two bodies taken out of the consortship of the self-same material substance.

To His Wife Book 1

What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both (are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly "two in one flesh." Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit ton.

To His Wife Book 2

The apostle understands "the two shall become one flesh," as referring to Christ and the church. So we must say that Christ did not dismiss the former (so to speak) wife, that is, the former synagogue, for any other cause than that the wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one. Along with him she plotted against her husband and gave him over to death, saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify him, crucify him."It was she, the synagogue, therefore who left him, rather than that her husband divorced her and sent her away. Therefore it says in Isaiah, rebuking her for this divorce: "Where is your mother's bill of divorce, with which I put her away?"

Commentary on Matthew 14.17

5–6

“What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” God “has joined” in making one flesh of man and woman; this no man can put asunder, unless perhaps God alone. Man “puts asunder” when we dismiss our first wife in desire of a second; God, who also had joined together, puts asunder, when by consent for God’s service, we so have our wives as though not having them.

Commentary on Matthew 1.19.6

5–6

(Vers. 5, 6.) And he said: Because of this, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Likewise, he said, a man must be united to his wife, not wives. And the two will become one flesh. The reward of marriage is for two to become one flesh. Chastity joined to the spirit makes one spirit.

Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate. God has joined, by making one flesh of man and woman: this the man cannot separate, unless perhaps by the power of God alone. Man separates, when, due to desire for a second spouse, he dismisses the first. God separates, who had also joined, when by consent due to the service of God (because time is limited) we have wives as though we have none (I Cor. VII).

Commentary on Matthew

In like manner He says his wife, and not wives, and adds expressly, and they twain shall be one flesh. For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh, namely in the offspring, is made of two.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

5–6

(Civ. Dei, xiv. 22.) For they are called one, either from their union, or from the derivation of the woman, who was taken out of the side of the man.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(Gen. ad lit. ix. 19.) Whereas Scripture witnesses that these words were said by the first man, and the Lord here declares that God spake them, hence we should understand that by reason of the ecstasy which had passed upon Adam, he was enabled to speak this as a prophecy.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The Apostle says that this is a mystery in Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32.); for the Lord Jesus Christ left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He left His mother, that is, the synagogue, because of its unbelief, and clave unto His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are one flesh, that is, Christ and the Church are one body.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

For by the wholesome design of God it was ordained that a man should have in the woman a part of his own body, and should not look upon as separate from himself that which he knew was formed out of himself.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The goodness of wedded union is of such importance to God that He even permitted women to leave their parents and to cleave to their husbands. But why is it written in Genesis (Gen. 2:24) that Adam said, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother," while here Christ says that it was God Who said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother." We say, therefore, that what Adam spoke, he spoke from God, so that the speech of Adam is of God.

Commentary on Matthew

5–6

(interlin.) Or, one flesh, that is in carnal connection.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

If then because the wife is made of the man, and both one of one flesh, a man shall leave his father and his mother, then there should be yet greater affection between brothers and sisters, for these come of the same parents, but man and wife of different. But this is saying too much, because the ordinance of God is of more force than the law of nature. For God's precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature bends to the precepts of God. Also brethren are born of one, that they should seek out different roads; but the man and the wife are born of different persons, that they should coalesce in one. The order of nature also follows the appointment of God. For as is the sap in trees, so is affection in man. The sap ascends from the roots into the leaves, and passes forth into the seed. Therefore parents love their children, but are not so loved of them, for the desire of a man is not towards his parents, but towards the sons whom he has begot; and this is what is said, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

For this cause a man shall leave father and mother. Here he presents the affection which he implanted. And he said. Who said? He who made them. But this does not seem right, because it seems that Adam said it. Augustine says that the Lord sent a deep sleep upon Adam and took one of his ribs. This sleep was an ecstasy; hence there he revealed many good things; hence the Lord also revealed to him what is said here; hence above at 10:20 it was said: for it is not you who speak, but the spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Because therefore Adam spoke at God's command, it is said that God spoke; hence 2 Esdras 4: a man leaves his father, who nourished him. And cleaves to his wife. What is the reason? A brother and sister are born of one, and they separate; but a husband and wife are from different families, and yet they do not separate. Chrysostom says that this is from divine ordinance. Likewise, naturally every cause has a return to its effect, as sap from the root to the branches; hence fathers love their children more than conversely; therefore husband and wife, although they are from different families, are nevertheless united in one effect. And the two shall be in one flesh. Jerome says: namely in the flesh of offspring. And this is the fruit of marriage. Chrysostom explains: in one flesh, i.e., in one carnal affection, just as in spiritual affection there is unity, as in Acts 4:32: and the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. Or the two shall be in one flesh, i.e., in one carnal act. The Philosopher says that man and woman in that act are always related in such a way that just as active and passive power are always joined in an effect, so in that act action and passion are joined.

Commentary on Matthew

5–6

It does really mean that a section of the human race is asking whether the primary relations of the two human sexes are particularly good for modern shops. The human race is asking whether Adam and Eve are entirely suitable for Marshall and Snelgrove. If this is not topsy-turvy I cannot imagine what would be. We ask whether the universal institution will improve our (please God) temporary institution. ... They do not ask if the means is suited to the end; they all ask (with profound and penetrating scepticism) if the end is suited to the means. They do not ask whether the tail suits the dog. They all ask whether a dog is (by the highest artistic canons) the most ornamental appendage that can be put at the end of a tail.

In Topsy-Turvy Land (Tremendous Trifles)

5–6

But Christ in his view of marriage does not in the least suggest the conditions of Palestine in the first century. He does not suggest anything at all, except the sacramental view of marriage as developed long afterwards by the Catholic Church. It was quite as difficult for people then as for people now. It was much more puzzling to people then than to people now. Jews and Romans and Greeks did not believe, and did not even understand enough to disbelieve, the mystical idea that the man and the woman had become one sacramental substance. We may think it an incredible or impossible ideal; but we cannot think it any more incredible or impossible than they would have thought it. In other words, whatever else is true, it is not true that the controversy has been altered by time. Whatever else is true, it is emphatically not true that the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth were suitable to his time, but are no longer suitable to our time. Exactly how suitable they were to his time is perhaps suggested in the end of his story.

The Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 2: The Riddles of the Gospel (1925)

5–6

So it is in this case of the sacrament of marriage. We may not believe in sacraments, as we may not believe in spirits, but it is quite clear that Christ believed in this sacrament in his own way and not in any current or contemporary way. He certainly did not get his argument against divorce from the Mosaic law or the Roman law or the habits of the Palestinian people. It would appear to his critics then exactly what it appears to his critics now; an arbitrary and transcendental dogma coming from nowhere save in the sense that it came from him. I am not at all concerned here to defend that dogma; the point here is that it is just as easy to defend it now as it was to defend it then. It is an ideal altogether outside time; difficult at any period; impossible at no period. In other words, if any one says it is what might be expected of a man walking about in that place at that period, we can quite fairly answer that it is much more like what might be the mysterious utterance of a being beyond man, if he walked alive among men.

The Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 2: The Riddles of the Gospel (1925)

5–6

Thus, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, an intelligent man in other matters, says that there is only a “theological” opposition to divorce, and that it is entirely founded on “certain texts” in the Bible about marriages. This is exactly as if he said that a belief in the brotherhood of men was only founded on certain texts in the Bible, about all men being the children of Adam and Eve. Millions of peasants and plain people all over the world assume marriage to be static, without having ever clapped eyes on any text. Numbers of more modern people, especially after the recent experiments in America, think divorce is a social disease, without having ever bothered about any text. It may be maintained that even in these, or in any one, the idea of marriage is ultimately mystical; and the same may be maintained about the idea of brotherhood. It is obvious that a husband and wife are not visibly one flesh, in the sense of being one quadruped. It is equally obvious that Paderewski and Jack Johnson are not twins, and probably have not played together at their mother’s knee. There is indeed a very important admission, or addition, to be realised here. What is true is this: that if the nonsense of Nietzsche or some such sophist submerged current culture, so that it was the fashion to deny the duties of fraternity; then indeed it might be found that the group which still affirmed fraternity was the original group in whose sacred books was the text about Adam and Eve. Suppose some Prussian professor has opportunely discovered that Germans and lesser men are respectively descended from two such very different monkeys that they are in no sense brothers, but barely cousins (German) any number of times removed. And suppose he proceeds to remove them even further with a hatchet; suppose he bases on this a repetition of the conduct of Cain, saying not so much “Am I my brother’s keeper?” as “Is he really my brother?” And suppose this higher philosophy of the hatchet becomes prevalent in colleges and cultivated circles, as even more foolish philosophies have done. Then I agree it probably will be the Christian, the man who preserves the text about Cain, who will continue to assert that he is still the professor’s brother; that he is still the professor’s keeper. He may possibly add that, in his opinion, the professor seems to require a keeper.

And that is doubtless the situation in the controversies about divorce and marriage to-day. It is the Christian church which continues to hold strongly, when the world for some reason has weakened on it, what many others hold at other times. But even then it is barely picking up the shreds and scraps of the subject to talk about a reliance on texts. The vital point in the comparison is this: that human brotherhood means a whole view of life, held in the light of life, and defended, rightly or wrongly, by constant appeals to every aspect of life. The religion that holds it most strongly will hold it when nobody else holds it; that is quite true, and that some of us may be so perverse as to think a point in favour of the religion. But anybody who holds it at all will hold it as a philosophy, not hung on one text but on a hundred truths. Fraternity may be a sentimental metaphor; I may be suffering a delusion when I hail a Montenegrin peasant as my long lost brother. As a fact, I have my own suspicions about which of us it is that has got lost. But my delusion is not a deduction from one text, or from twenty; it is the expression of a relation that to me at least seems a reality. And what I should say about the idea of a brother, I should say about the idea of a wife.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 1

5–6

But before they make this attempt, it would be well to ask why such a dignity ever appeared or in what it consisted. And I fancy we shall find ourselves confronted with the very simple truth, that the dignity arose wholly and entirely out of the fidelity; and that the glamour merely came from the vow. People were regarded as having a certain dignity because they were dedicated in a certain way; as bound to certain duties and, if it be preferred, to certain discomforts. It may be irrational to endure these discomforts; it may even be irrational to respect them. But it is certainly much more irrational to respect them, and then artificially transfer the same respect to the absence of them. It is as if we were to expect uniforms to be saluted when armies were disbanded; and ask people to cheer a soldier’s coat when it did not contain a soldier. If you think you can abolish war, abolish it; but do not suppose that when there are no wars to be waged, there will still be warriors to be worshipped. If it was a good thing that the monasteries were dissolved, let us say so and dismiss them. But the nobles who dissolved the monasteries did not shave their heads, and ask to be regarded as saints solely on account of that ceremony. The nobles did not dress up as abbots and ask to be credited with a potential talent for working miracles, because of the austerity of their vows of poverty and chastity. They got inside the houses, but not the hoods, and still less the haloes. They at least knew that it is not the habit that makes the monk. They were not so superstitious as those moderns, who think it is the veil that makes the bride.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. VII: The Tragedies of Marriage (1920)

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism - for that is what the words 'one flesh' would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact - just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.

Mere Christianity, Chapter 6 - Christian Marriage

I think there is also a confusion. We don't really want grief, in its first agonies, to be prolonged: nobody could. But we want something else of which grief is a frequent symptom, and then we confuse the symptom with the thing itself. I wrote the other night that bereavement is not the truncation of married love but one of its regular phases—like the honeymoon. What we want is to live our marriage well and faithfully through that phase too. If it hurts (and it certainly will) we accept the pains as a necessary part of this phase. We don't want to escape them at the price of desertion or divorce. Killing the dead a second time. We were one flesh. Now that it has been cut in two, we don't want to pretend that it is whole and complete. We will be still married, still in love. Therefore we shall still ache. But we are not at all—if we understand ourselves—seeking the aches for their own sake. The less of them the better, so long as the marriage is preserved. And the more joy there can be in the marriage between dead and living, the better.

A Grief Observed, Chapter III

And accordingly, those whom God "from the beginning" conjoined, "two into one flesh," man shall not at the present day separate. The apostle, too, writing to the Ephesians, says that God "had proposed in Himself, at the dispensation of the fulfilment of the times, to recall to the head" (that is, to the beginning) "things universal in Christ, which are above the heavens and above the earth in Him.

On Monogamy

God has joined by making man and woman one flesh; this then man may not put asunder, but God only. Man puts asunder, when from desire of a second wife the first is put away; God puts asunder, who also had joined, when by consent for the service of God we so have our wives as though we had them not. (1 Cor. 7:29.)

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Therefore, since they have become one flesh, joined together by means of marital relations and physical affection, just as it is accursed to cut one's own flesh, so is it accursed to separate husband and wife. He did not say, "Let not Moses put asunder," so as not to scandalize them, but simply "Let not man," showing the gap between God Who joins together and man who dissolves.

Commentary on Matthew

Understand this also, that "he that is joined unto the Lord is of one spirit with Him" (I Cor. 6:17) and a union takes place between the believer and Christ. For we have all become one body with Him and we are, each one of us, members of Christ. So indeed no one can separate such a union, as Paul said, Who can separate us from the love of Christ? For what God has joined together, nothing can separate, as Paul says, neither man nor any other created thing, not angels, principalities, or powers (See Rom. 8:38-39).

Commentary on Matthew

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Then he draws the principal conclusion: what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder, because it was done by God's will. If it is from God, man cannot separate; because if God joined, let God separate. For separation can be made by God or by man: and this either for pleasure, or to have some other woman, and this does not avail; or by mutual consent, so that one may serve God more freely, and so it is from God.

Commentary on Matthew

Architecture is a very good test of the true strength of a society, for the most valuable things in a human state are the irrevocable things--marriage, for instance. And architecture approaches nearer than any other art to being irrevocable, because it is so difficult to get rid of. You can turn a picture with its face to the wall; it would be a nuisance to turn that Roman cathedral with its face to the wall. You can tear a poem to pieces; it is only in moments of very sincere emotion that you tear a town-hall to pieces. A building is akin to dogma; it is insolent, like a dogma. Whether or no it is permanent, it claims permanence like a dogma.

Tremendous Trifles, IX. In the Place de La Bastille (1909)

They are trying to break the vow of the knight as they broke the vow of the monk. They recognise the vow as the vital antithesis to servile status; the alternative and therefore the antagonist. Marriage makes a small state within the state, which resists all such regimentation. That bond breaks all other bonds; that law is found stronger than all later and lesser laws. They desire the democracy to be sexually fluid, because the making of small nuclei is like the making of small nations. Like small nations, they are a nuisance to the mind of imperial scope. In short, what they fear, in the most literal sense, is home rule.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 6: The Story of the Vow

What is respected, in short, is fidelity to the ancient flag of the family, and a readiness to fight for what I have noted as its unique type of freedom. I say readiness to fight, for fortunately the fight itself is the exception rather than the rule. The soldier is not respected because he is doomed to death, but because he is ready for death; and even ready for defeat. The married man or woman is not doomed to evil, sickness or poverty; but is respected for taking a certain step for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness or in health. But there is one result of this line of argument which should correct a danger in some arguments on the same side.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. VII: The Tragedies of Marriage (1920)

Anyhow, to vary the legendary symbolism, it never seems to occur to the king in this fairy tale that the gold crown on his head is a less, and not a more, sacred and settled ornament than the gold ring on the woman’s finger.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 4

So the unfortunate man, who cannot tolerate the woman he has chosen from all the women in the world, is not encouraged to return to her and tolerate her, but encouraged to choose another woman whom he may in due course refuse to tolerate. And in all these cases the argument is the same; that the man in the intermediate state is unhappy. Probably he is unhappy, since he is abnormal; but the point is that he is permitted to loosen the universal bond which has kept millions of others normal. Because he has himself got into a hole, he is allowed to burrow in it like a rabbit and undermine a whole countryside.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 4

One word should be added to this hasty sketch of the elements of the case. I have deliberately left out the loftiest aspect and argument, that which sees marriage as a divine institution; and that for the logical reason that those who believe in this would not believe in divorce; and I am arguing with those who do believe in divorce. I do not ask them to assume the worth of my creed or any creed; and I could wish they did not so often ask me to assume the worth of their worthless, poisonous plutocratic modern society. But if it could be shown, as I think it can, that a long historical view and a patient political experience can at last accumulate solid scientific evidence of the vital need of such a vow, then I can conceive no more tremendous tribute than this, to any faith, which made a flaming affirmation from the darkest beginnings, of what the latest enlightenment can only slowly discover in the end.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 4

But if my association of divorce with slavery seems only a far-fetched and theoretical paradox, I should have no difficulty in replacing it by a concrete and familiar picture. Let them merely remember the time when they read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” and ask themselves whether the oldest and simplest of the charges against slavery has not always been the breaking up of families.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 6: The Story of the Vow

While free love seems to me a heresy, divorce does really seem to me a superstition. It is not only more of a superstition than free love, but much more of a superstition than strict sacramental marriage; and this point can hardly be made too plain. It is the partisans of divorce, not the defenders of marriage, who attach a stiff and senseless sanctity to a mere ceremony, apart from the meaning of the ceremony. It is our opponents, and not we, who hope to be saved by the letter of ritual, instead of the spirit of reality. It is they who hold that vow or violation, loyalty or disloyalty, can all be disposed of by a mysterious and magic rite, performed first in a law-court and then in a church or a registry office. There is little difference between the two parts of the ritual; except that the law court is much more ritualistic. But the plainest parallels will show anybody that all this is sheer barbarous credulity. It may or may not be superstition for a man to believe he must kiss the Bible to show he is telling the truth. It is certainly the most grovelling superstition for him to believe that, if he kisses the Bible, anything he says will come true. It would surely be the blackest and most benighted Bible-worship to suggest that the mere kiss on the mere book alters the moral quality of perjury. Yet this is precisely what is implied in saying that formal re-marriage alters the moral quality of conjugal infidelity. It may have been a mark of the Dark Ages that Harold should swear on a relic, though he were afterwards foresworn. But surely those ages would have been at their darkest, if he had been content to be sworn on a relic and forsworn on another relic. Yet this is the new altar these reformers would erect for us, out of the mouldy and meaningless relics of their dead law and their dying religion.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 2

The real situation is skilfully concealed by saying that the question of Mr A.'s "right" to desert his wife is one of "sexual morality". Robbing an orchard is not an offense against some special morality called "fruit morality". It is an offense against honesty. Mr A.'s action is an offense against good faith (to solemn promises), against gratitude (toward one to whom he was deeply indebted) and against common humanity.

Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behaviour which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust.

We Have No Right to Happiness, from God in the Dock

6–9

A man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or he can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). This is a fallen world. The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been 'going to the bad' all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the 'hard spirit of concupiscence' has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell. We will leave aside the 'immoral' results. These you desire not to be dragged into. To renunciation you have no call. 'Friendship' then? In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a 'friendship' quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by 'falling in love'. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want 'friendship', even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Allas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says. Then if he is a Christian and is aware that there is such a thing as sin, he wants to know what to do about it.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'.

You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don't be misled by the fact that they are more 'sentimental' in words – freer with 'darling', and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can 'reform' men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk 'bawdy'; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don't find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

However, the essence of a fallen world is that the best cannot be attained by free enjoyment, or by what is called 'self-realization' (usually a nice name for self-indulgence, wholly inimical to the realization of other selves); but by denial, by suffering. Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him – as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state, as it provides easements. No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that — even those brought up 'in the Church'. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it. When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soulmate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only —. Hence divorce, to provide the 'if only'. And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the 'real soul-mate' is the one you are actually married to. You really do very little choosing: life and circumstance do most of it (though if there is a God these must be His instruments, or His appearances). It is notorious that in fact happy marriages are more common where the 'choosing' by the young persons is even more limited, by parental or family authority, as long as there is a social ethic of plain unromantic responsibility and conjugal fidelity. But even in countries where the romantic tradition has so far affected social arrangements as to make people believe that the choosing of a mate is solely the concern of the young, only the rarest good fortune brings together the man and woman who are really as it were 'destined' for one another, and capable of a very great and splendid love. The idea still dazzles us, catches us by the throat: poems and stories in multitudes have been written on the theme, more, probably, than the total of such loves in real life (yet the greatest of these tales do not tell of the happy marriage of such great lovers, but of their tragic separation; as if even in this sphere the truly great and splendid in this fallen world is more nearly achieved by 'failure' and suffering). In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean, heart, and fidelity of will.....

My own history is so exceptional, so wrong and imprudent in nearly every point that it makes it difficult to counsel prudence. Yet hard cases make bad law; and exceptional cases are not always good guides for others.

[...]

Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. .... There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires.

Letter #43, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, From a letter to Michael Tolkien 6-8 March 1941

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: "Moses," says He, "because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so" -for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made them male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Against Marcion Book 4

So true, moreover, is it that divorce "was not from the beginning," that among the Romans it is not till after the six hundredth year from the building of the city that this kind of "hard-heartedness" is set down as having been committed.

On Monogamy

Nevertheless, unspeakable wisdom maketh a defense even for these things, and saith, "Moses for the hardness of your hearts" thus made the law. And not even him doth He suffer to remain under accusation, forasmuch as He had Himself given him the law; but delivers him from the charge, and turns the whole upon their head, as everywhere He doth.

For again when they were blaming His disciples for plucking the ears of corn, He shows themselves to be guilty; and when they were laying a transgression to their charge as to their not washing their hands, He shows themselves to be the transgressors, and touching the Sabbath also: both everywhere, and here in like manner.

Then because the saying was hard to bear, and brought on them much blame, He quickly directs back His discourse to that ancient law, saying as He had said before also, "But in the beginning it was not so," that is, God by His acts at the beginning ordained the contrary. For in order that they may not say, Whence is it manifest, that "for our hardness Moses said this?" hereby again He stoppeth their mouths. For if this were the primary law, and for our good, that other would not have been given at the beginning; God in creating would not have so created, He would not have said such things.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62

(Verse 8.) He said to them: because Moses allowed you to divorce your wives due to the hardness of your hearts, but it was not like that from the beginning. This is what he meant: Can God be opposed to himself, so that he would command one thing before and then nullify his own command with a new one? It should not be understood this way. Rather, Moses, seeing that because of the desire for second wives, who were either richer, younger, or more beautiful, the first wives were being killed or leading a bad life, preferred to tolerate discord rather than continue with hatred and murders (Deut. XXIV). At the same time, consider that God did not allow it because of the hardness of your hearts, but Moses did, so that, according to the Apostle's counsel (1 Corinthians 7), it may be a human choice, not a commandment from God.

Commentary on Matthew

What He says is to this purpose. Is it possible that God should so contradict Himself, as to command one thing at first, and after defeat His own ordinance by a new statute? Think not so; but, whereas Moses saw that through desire of second wives who should be richer, younger, or fairer, that the first were put to death, or treated ill, he chose rather to suffer separation, than the continuance of hatred and assassination. Observe moreover that He said not God suffered you, but, Moses; showing that it was, as the Apostle speaks, a counsel of man, not a command of God. (1 Cor. 7:12.)

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Then the Lord, turning every accusation upon their own head, defends Moses by saying, "Moses did not set this law in contradiction to God, but rather he addressed this law to your depravity, so that when you in your licentiousness desired to come together with other women, you would not put to death your first wife." For the Israelites, being cruel, would have murdered their wives if they were constrained to keep them. So Moses provided in the law for a writ of divorce to be given to those wives who were hated by their husbands.

Commentary on Matthew

Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And he said to them. Here he answers the objection. And first he presents the answer; secondly the confirmation, because the Lord proves that a wife should not be put away from the authority of God, which is greater; therefore against the authority of God there is no authority of Moses. But against this: did not the Lord give the law through Moses? See, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:25: concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel. Hence sometimes he was saying what he had received from the Lord, sometimes from his own divinely inspired judgment: so also Moses. But this he permitted, not because he had heard it from the Lord, but from divine inspiration, yet not confirmed by authority. Because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted you to put away your wives. They had said that Moses commanded; but he did not command, but permitted. Concerning their hardness, Acts 7:51: stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. Here there is usually a question, whether those who put away their wives sin mortally. Some said that those who put them away sinned mortally. For permission is taken in four ways. Something is said to be permitted when the contrary is not commanded, as a lesser good is permitted because a greater good is not commanded, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:6: I speak by way of indulgence. Likewise sometimes by the privation of prohibition; and so venial sins are permitted. But sometimes by the privation of impediment: and so all the evils that are done in the present life are sometimes also said to be permitted, because punishment is not applied. Therefore certain things were permitted to the Jews which were mortal sins, because punishment was not inflicted on them. But this has a place in worldly matters: for so we see that according to human laws simple fornication is not punished; hence if the Old Law only looked to the present life, the solution is good. But because although according to the letter it pertains to the present life, yet according to the substance it pertains also to eternal life, Exodus 15:25: I gave them my precepts; and the Lord says to the young man below in the same chapter: if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments; therefore others say that it would have been poorly provided for that people if they did not know what was a sin, since nevertheless it is written, Isaiah 58:1: declare to the people their sins. Therefore Chrysostom says that he removed from the sin the guilt of sin. And although it was something disordered, he did not wish it to be imputed to them as guilt, as the Lord commanded Hosea to take a wife of fornication: hence the permission was not from a precept, but to avoid a greater evil. But from the beginning it was not so. Hence it was something actual, not instituted from the beginning: hence for many years no one put away his wife.

Commentary on Matthew

"Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way."

Hermas, Commandment 4

9–12

Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.

The First Apology, Chapter XV

A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" [Matthew 19:9] not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

A Plea for the Christians

Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law? In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication liveth in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn." Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because "to whom much is given, from him shall more be required."

The Stromata Book 2

But, however, since Patience takes the lead in every species of salutary discipline, what wonder that she likewise ministers to Repentance, (accustomed as Repentance is to come to the rescue of such as have fallen, ) when, on a disjunction of wedlock (for that cause, I mean, which makes it lawful, whether for husband or wife, to persist in the perpetual observance of widowhood), she waits for, she yearns for, she persuades by her entreaties, repentance in all who are one day to enter salvation? How great a blessing she confers on each!The one she prevents from becoming an adulterer; the other she amends.

Of Patience

Perhaps some one will say, that Jesus in thus speaking, suffered wives to be put away for the same cause that Moses suffered them, which He says was for the hardness of the hearts of the Jews. But to this it is to be answered, that if by the Law an adulteress is stoned, that sin is not to be understood as the shameful thing for which Moses suffers a writing of divorcement; (Deut. 24:1.) for in a cause of adultery it was not lawful to give a writing of divorcement. But Moses perhaps calls every sin in a woman a shameful thing, which if it be found in her, a bill of divorcement is written against her. But we should enquire, If it is lawful to put away a wife for the cause of fornication only, what is it if a woman be not an adulteress, but have done any other heinous crime; have been found a poisoner, or to have murdered her children? The Lord has explained this matter in another place, saying, Whoso putteth her away, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, (Mat. 5:32.) giving her an opportunity of a second marriage.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended.

(Book 8), The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles, Section 48

To commit adultery is to have relations with a woman who is not one’s proper spouse. A man commits adultery if he brings another woman in, instead of the one to whom he was lawfully bound. The law forbade obvious adultery, which is when another man seduces the woman in the house. But the Savior includes also that adultery that has not become known to everyone or that has not been proven as having occurred physically, because it is still adultery. Moreover, Christ agrees that the unfaithful wife has rebelled because she herself has destroyed the natural yoking and is no longer treated as a wife by her husband.

Fragment 94

"But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery." For since he had stopped their mouths, He then gives the law with His own authority, like as touching the meats, like as touching the Sabbath.

For with regard to the meats likewise, when He had overcome them, then, and not till then, He declared unto the multitude, that, "Not that which goeth in defileth the man;" and with regard to the Sabbath, when He had stopped their mouths, He saith, "Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day;" and here this self-same thing.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62

It is fornication alone which destroys the relationship of the wife; for when she has divided one flesh into two, and has separated herself by fornication from her husband, she is not to be retained, lest she should bring her husband also under the curse, which Scripture has spoken, He that keepeth an adulteress is a fool and wicked. (Prov. 18:23.)

For it might be that a man might falsely charge an innocent wife, and for the sake of another woman might fasten an accusation upon her. Therefore it is commanded so to put away the first, that a second be not married while the first is yet alive. Also because it might happen that by the same law a wife would divorce her husband, it is also provided that she take not another husband; and because one who had become an adulteress would have no further fear of disgrace, it is commanded that she many not another husband. But if she do marry another, she is in the guilt of adultery; wherefore it follows, And whoso marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(Verse 9.) But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. And he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery. Only fornication is what overcomes a wife's affection: indeed, when she divides one flesh into another, and separates herself from her husband through fornication, she should not be held: lest she also make her husband subject to a curse, as Scripture says: Whoever holds onto an adulteress, is foolish and wicked. Therefore, whenever there is fornication, or even suspicion of fornication, the wife is freely dismissed. And because it could happen that someone falsely accuses the innocent person and implicates them in an old crime due to a second marriage, the husband is commanded to divorce the first wife so that he does not have a second wife while the first one is still alive. For what he says is as follows: If you divorce your wife not for lust but for injury, why do you expose yourself to the danger of unhappy previous marriages by entering into new ones? Moreover, because it could happen that, according to the same law, a wife could also give a divorce to her husband, the same caution is prescribed so that she does not marry a second man. And because a prostitute, and one who has once been an adulteress, does not fear disgrace, the same caution is prescribed for the husband, that if he marries such a woman, he is subject to the crime of adultery.

Commentary on Matthew

(De Conjug. Adult. ii. 9.) For a reunion of the wedlock, even after actual commission of adultery, is neither shameful nor difficult, where there is an undoubted remission of sin through the keys of the kingdom of heaven; not that after being divorced from her husband an adulteress should be called back again, but that after her union with Christ she should no longer be called an adulteress.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

There is then but one carnal cause why a wife should be put away, that is, fornication, and but one spiritual, that is, the fear of God. But there is no cause why while she who has been put away is alive, another should be married.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But I say to you, Christ says, that it is good to divorce as an adulteress a wife who has committed fornication, but if one divorces a wife who has not committed fornication, he becomes in part the cause of adultery for her if she should marry again.

Commentary on Matthew

(ord.) He says this to the terror of him that would take her to wife, for the adulteress would have no fear of disgrace.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.

For as he is cruel and unjust that puts away a chaste wife, so is he a fool and unjust that retains an unchaste; for in that he hides the guilt of his wife, he is an encourager of foulness.

For every thing by whatsoever causes it is created, by the same is it destroyed. It is not matrimony but the will that makes the union; and therefore it is not a separation of bodies but a separation of wills that dissolves it. He then who puts away his wife and does not take another is still her husband; for though their bodies be not united, their wills are united. But when he takes another, then he manifestly puts his wife away; wherefore the Lord says not, Whoso putteth away his wife, but, Whoso marrieth another, committeth adultery.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And I say to you etc. Here he introduces the law. First for the husband; secondly for the wife. He says therefore whosoever shall put away his wife etc. But fornication is excepted. But see that fornication is twofold, namely corporal and spiritual. Hence one can put away for either, as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:11: if one is an unbeliever and the other a believer, the believer can put away the unbeliever. It should be noted that by no subsequent impediment can the bond of marriage be dissolved, because it signifies the union of Christ and the Church: hence since the union of Christ and the Church cannot be dissolved, neither can the union of marriage. But on account of fornication one can be separated from the common life, and he ought not to keep her with him, lest he seem to be a consenter to the wickedness; but for other faults he cannot, as for drunkenness. Likewise if she wishes to lead a man to unbelief, he can put her away. But why is mention made more of corporal fornication than of spiritual? Because it is against the fidelity of marriage: and faith need not be kept with one who breaks faith. Another reason is one which Origen gives, because above at 5:32 the Lord said, he who puts away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery, and therefore he gives her an occasion for committing adultery; but after she has sinned, he does not give her an occasion for committing adultery, and therefore afterwards he can put her away, but not before. And he who shall marry another, commits adultery. But why not, unless he marries another? Because the same thing is bound by those things by which it is loosed. Hence when a man has a separated wife, and no other, the hope still remains that they can be reunited, either through a similar fault, or through a consent of minds; but when he has married another, then he has totally separated his heart and consent from her. Another reason is that if apart from fornication he could put away his wife, it would sometimes happen that a man would impute a crime to his wife, so as to be separated from her and joined to another; therefore the Lord willed that he should not have another. Hence he expressly forbids that a man should have different wives, because having dismissed one and taken another, he commits adultery. And he who shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery. Here he sets forth the law regarding the woman: hence he does not wish that a dismissed wife have a husband. But why does he forbid the man from contracting with her, and not the woman? I answer that women are more headlong toward evil. Jeremiah 3:3: you have had the forehead of a harlot. Therefore by this prohibition she would be headlong into greater evils. Therefore he commands the man not to contract, but does not forbid the woman. But what then? Was it not lawful for a woman who was repudiated to take another husband? Some say no, because the bond still remained: and they cite what is found in Deuteronomy 24, that she could not return to the former husband, because she was defiled; but if she had not sinned, she could return. Others say that she could marry another, but not this one, because if she could return to him, he would more easily repudiate her. What then do you say, that she is defiled? I say that she is defiled to him, because she cannot return to him. Or it can be understood of legal uncleanness, because a priest could not have her.

Commentary on Matthew

I say this in passing, to point out that while I do not dream of suggesting that there are only happy marriages, there will quite certainly, as things work nowadays, be a very large number of unhappy and unjust divorces. They will be cases in which the innocent partner will receive the real punishment of the guilty partner, through being in fact and feeling the faithful partner. For instance, it is insisted that a married person must at least find release from the society of a lunatic; but it is also true that the scientific reformers, with their fuss about “the feeble-minded,” are continually giving larger and looser definitions of lunacy. The process might begin by releasing somebody from a homicidal maniac, and end by dealing in the same way with a rather dull conversationalist. But in fact nobody does deny that a person should be allowed some sort of release from a homicidal maniac. The most extreme school of orthodoxy only maintains that anybody who has had that experience should be content with that release. In other words, it says he should be content with that experience of matrimony, and not seek another. It was put very wittily, I think, by a Roman Catholic friend of mine, who said he approved of release so long as it was not spelt with a hyphen.

To put it roughly, we are prepared in some cases to listen to the man who complains of having a wife. But we are not prepared to listen, at such length, to the same man when he comes back and complains that he has not got a wife. Now in practice at this moment the great mass of the complaints are precisely of this kind. The reformers insist particularly on the pathos of a man’s position when he has obtained a separation without a divorce. Their most tragic figure is that of the man who is already free of all those ills he had, and is only asking to be allowed to fly to others that he knows not of. I should be the last to deny that, in certain emotional circumstances, his tragedy may be very tragic indeed. But his tragedy is of the emotional kind which can never be entirely eliminated; and which he has himself, in all probability, inflicted on the partner he has left. We may call it the price of maintaining an ideal or the price of making a mistake; but anyhow it is the point of our whole distinction in the matter; it is here that we draw the line, and I have nowhere denied that it is a line of battle. The battle joins on the debatable ground, not of the man’s doubtful past but of his still more doubtful future. In a word, the divorce controversy is not really a controversy about divorce. It is a controversy about re-marriage; or rather about whether it is marriage at all.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. VII: The Tragedies of Marriage (1920)

While free love seems to me a heresy, divorce does really seem to me a superstition. It is not only more of a superstition than free love, but much more of a superstition than strict sacramental marriage; and this point can hardly be made too plain. It is the partisans of divorce, not the defenders of marriage, who attach a stiff and senseless sanctity to a mere ceremony, apart from the meaning of the ceremony. It is our opponents, and not we, who hope to be saved by the letter of ritual, instead of the spirit of reality. It is they who hold that vow or violation, loyalty or disloyalty, can all be disposed of by a mysterious and magic rite, performed first in a law-court and then in a church or a registry office. There is little difference between the two parts of the ritual; except that the law court is much more ritualistic. But the plainest parallels will show anybody that all this is sheer barbarous credulity. It may or may not be superstition for a man to believe he must kiss the Bible to show he is telling the truth. It is certainly the most grovelling superstition for him to believe that, if he kisses the Bible, anything he says will come true. It would surely be the blackest and most benighted Bible-worship to suggest that the mere kiss on the mere book alters the moral quality of perjury. Yet this is precisely what is implied in saying that formal re-marriage alters the moral quality of conjugal infidelity. It may have been a mark of the Dark Ages that Harold should swear on a relic, though he were afterwards foresworn. But surely those ages would have been at their darkest, if he had been content to be sworn on a relic and forsworn on another relic. Yet this is the new altar these reformers would erect for us, out of the mouldy and meaningless relics of their dead law and their dying religion.

The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 2

Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. It is a great pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for an ordinary layman the thing to notice is that the Churches all agree with one another about marriage a great deal more than any of them agrees with the outside world. I mean, they all regard divorce as something like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desparate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both you legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment. What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else.

Mere Christianity, Chapter 6 - Christian Marriage

What then saith Christ? He said not, "yea, it is easier, and so do," lest they should suppose that the thing is a law; but He subjoined, "Not all men receive it, but they to whom it is given," raising the thing, and showing that it is great, and in this way drawing them on, and urging them.

But see herein a contradiction. For He indeed saith this is a great thing; but they, that it is easier. For it was meet that both these things should be done, and that it should be at once acknowledged a great thing by Him, that it might render them more forward, and by the things said by themselves it should be shown to be easier, that on this ground too they might the rather choose virginity and continence.

And if it is of free choice, one may say, how doth He say, at the beginning, "All men do not receive it, but they to whom it is given?" That thou mightest learn that the conflict is great, not that thou shouldest suspect any compulsory allotments. For it is given to those, even to the willing.

But He spake thus to show that much influence from above is needed by him who entereth these lists, whereof He that is willing shall surely partake. For it is customary for Him to use this form of speech when the good work done is great, as when He saith, "To you it is given to know the mysteries."

And that this is true, is manifest even from the present instance. For if it be of the gift from above only, and they that live as virgins contribute nothing themselves, for nought did He promise them the kingdom of Heaven, and distinguish them from the other eunuchs.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62

(Verse 11.) He said to them: Not everyone can understand this word, but only those to whom it is given. No one should think that under this word, either fate or fortune is introduced: these are the virgins to whom it has been given by God, or whom certain circumstances have brought to this, but it has been given to those who have asked, who have desired, who have worked to receive it. For everyone who asks will receive, and the one who seeks will find, and to the one who knocks, it will be opened (Matthew 7:8 and Luke 11:10).

Commentary on Matthew

But let none think, that wherein He adds, save they to whom it is given, that either fate or fortune is implied, as though they were virgins only whom chance has led to such a fortune. For that is given to those who have sought it of God, who have longed for it, who have striven that they might obtain it.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But He said unto them, Not all can receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Since the disciples had said that it would be better not to enter into marriage, the Lord says that virginity is a great thing but not everyone can achieve it, but only those with whom God acts in synergy. "They to whom it is given" refers to those with whom God acts in synergy. It is given to those who ask. For He says, "Ask, and it shall be given you. For everyone that asketh receiveth" (Lk. 11:9).

Commentary on Matthew

Who said to them: he approves the opinion of the disciples. And first by words; secondly by deeds, at then were little children presented to him. And first he approves continence; secondly he assigns the differences among the continent, at for there are eunuchs etc.; thirdly the difficulty, at he that can take, let him take it. He says therefore who said to them: all men take not this word. You say that it is not expedient to marry: this is true for some, but it is not true for all, because not all have so great a virtue that they abstain; but they to whom it is given, because it is given to some not from their own doing, but by a gift of grace. Wisdom 8:21: I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it. For that a man living in the flesh should live apart from the flesh is not of man but of God; 1 Corinthians 7:7: I would that all men were even as myself; but every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. And because they might believe that all could be continent, therefore he says for there are eunuchs etc.

Commentary on Matthew

Thus in the Revelation of John it is said: "These are they which have not defiled their clothes with women," -indicating, of course, virgins, and such as have become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Therefore they shall be "clothed in white raiment," that is, in the bright beauty of the unwedded flesh.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Further, if we set down in order the higher and happier grades of bodily patience, (we find that)it is she who is entrusted by holiness with the care of continence of the flesh: she keeps the widow, and sets on the virgin the seal and raises the self-made eunuch to the realms of heaven. That which springs from a virtue of the mind is perfected in the flesh; and, finally, by the patience of the flesh, does battle under persecution.

Of Patience

If, then he shows plainly that even wives themselves are so to be had as if they be not had, on account of the straits of the times, what would be his sentiments about these vain appliances of theirs? Why, are there not many, withal, who so do, and seal themselves up to eunuchhood for the sake of the kingdom of God, spontaneously relinquishing a pleasure so honourable, and (as we know) permitted? Are there not some who prohibit to themselves (the use of) the very "creature of God," abstaining from wine and animal food, the enjoyments of which border upon no peril or solicitude; but they sacrifice to God the humility of their soul even in the chastened use of food? Sufficiently, therefore, have you, too, used your riches and your delicacies; sufficiently have you cut down the fruits of your dowries, before (receiving) the knowledge of saving disciplines.

On the Apparel of Women Book 2

How many are there who from the moment of their baptism set the seal (of virginity) upon their flesh? How many, again, who by equal mutual consent cancel the debt of matrimony-voluntary eunuchs for the sake of their desire! after the celestial kingdom! But if, while the marriage-tie is still intact, abstinence is endured, how much more when it has been undone! For I believe it to be harder for what is intact to be quite forsaken, than for what has been lost not to be yearned after.

To His Wife Book 1

This (even) broader assertion we make: that even if the Paraclete had in this our day definitely prescribed a virginity or continence total and absolute, so as not to permit the heat of the flesh to foam itself down even in single marriage, even thus He would seem to be introducing nothing of "novelty; "seeing that the Lord Himself opens "the kingdoms of the heavens" to "eunuchs," as being Himself, withal, a virgin; to whom looking, the apostle also-himself too for this reason abstinent-gives the preference to continence.

On Monogamy

But (now), when the "extremity of the times" has cancelled (the command) "Grow and multiply," since the apostles (another command), "It remaineth, that both they who have wives so be as if they have not," because "the time is compressed; and "the sour grape" chewed by "the fathers" has ceased "to set the sons' teeth on edge," for, "each one shall die in his own sin; "and "eunuchs" not only have lost ignominy, but have even deserved grace, being invited into "the kingdoms of the heavens: " the law of succeeding to the wife of a brother being buried, its contrary has obtained-that of not succeeding to the wife of a brother.

On Monogamy

is it that He Himself withal should set upon His own official chair men who were mindful rather to enjoin-(but) not likewise to practise-sanctity of the flesh, which (sanctity) He had in all ways recommended to their teaching and practising?-first by His own example, then by all other arguments; while He tells (them) that "the kingdom of heavens" is "children's; " while He associates with these (children) others who, after marriage, remained (or became)virgins; " while He calls (them) to (copy) the simplicity of the dove, a bird not merely innocuous, but modest too, and whereof one male knows one female; while He denies the Samaritan woman's (partner to be) a husband, that He may show that manifold husbandry is adultery; while, in the revelation of His own glory, He prefers, from among so many saints and prophets, to have with him Moses and Elias -the one a monogamist, the other a voluntary celibate (for Elias was nothing else than John, who came "in the power and spirit of Elias" ); while that "man gluttonous and toping," the "frequenter of luncheons and suppers, in the company of publicans and sinners," sups once for all at a single marriage, though, of course, many were marrying (around Him); for He willed to attend (marriages) only so often as (He willed) them to be.

On Monogamy

How long shall we allege "the flesh," because the Lord said, "the flesh is weak? " But He has withal premised that "the Spirit is prompt," in order that the Spirit may vanquish the flesh-that the weak may yield to the stronger. For again He says, "Let him who is able to receive, receive (it); " that is, let him who is not able go his way.

On Monogamy

These things, my brother, seem to you perhaps harsh and not to be endured; but recall that God has said, "He who receives it, let him receive it," that is, let him who does not receive it go his way.

On Flight in Persecution

The cause in one item he assigns nature; in the next violence, and in the last his own choice, in him, namely, that determined to be so from hope of the kingdom of heaven.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

For since to speak of virginity seemed to be grievous, by the constraint of this law He drove them to this desire. Then to show the possibility of it, He saith, "There are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mother's womb, there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men, and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake," by these words secretly leading them to choose the thing, and establishing the possibility of this virtue, and all but saying, Consider if thou wert in such case by nature, or hadst endured this selfsame thing at the hands of those who inflict such wanton injuries, what wouldest thou have done, being deprived indeed of the enjoyment, yet not having a reward? Thank God therefore now, for that with rewards and crowns thou undergoest this, which those men endure without crowns; or rather not ever this, but what is much lighter, being supported both by hope, and by the consciousness of the good work, and not having the desire so raging like waves within thee.

For the excision of a member is not able to quell such waves, and to make a calm, like the curb of reason; or rather, reason only can do this.

For this intent therefore He brought in those others, even that He might encourage these, since if this was not what He was establishing, what means His saying concerning the other eunuchs? But when He saith, that they made themselves eunuchs, He means not the excision of the members, far from it, but the putting away of wicked thoughts. Since the man who hath mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul saith, "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." And very reasonably. For such a one is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichaeans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves amongst the Greeks. For to cut off our members hath been from the beginning a work of demoniacal agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the work of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security, as being irresponsible; and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members, and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.

These are the ordinances of the devil, bringing in, besides the things which we have mentioned, another wicked doctrine also, and making way beforehand for the arguments concerning destiny and necessity even from hence, and everywhere marring the freedom given to us of God, and persuading us that evil deeds are of nature, and hence secretly implanting many other wicked doctrines, although not openly. For such are the devil's poisons.

Therefore I beseech you to flee from such lawlessness. For together with the things I have mentioned, neither doth the force of lust become milder hereby, but even more fierce. For from another origin hath the seed that is in us its sources, and from another cause do its waves swell. And some say from the brain, some from the loins, this violent impulse hath its birth; but I should say from nothing else than from an ungoverned will and a neglected mind: if this be temperate, there is no evil result from the motions of nature.

Having spoken then of the eunuchs that are eunuchs for nought and fruitlessly, unless with the mind they too practise temperance, and of those that are virgins for Heaven's sake, He proceeds again to say, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it," at once making them more earnest by showing that the good work is exceeding in greatness, and not suffering the thing to be shut up in the compulsion of a law, because of His unspeakable gentleness. And this He said, when He showed it to be most possible, in order that the emulation of the free choice might be greater.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62

There are three kinds of eunuchs, two carnal and the third spiritual. One group are those who are born this way. Another are those who are made into eunuchs by captivity or for pleasuring older women. The third are those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” and who become eunuchs for Christ though they could be whole men. The last group are promised the reward. The other two, for whom chastity is not a matter of willing but necessity, are due nothing at all. We can put it another way. There are eunuchs from birth who are of a rather frigid nature and not inclined to lust. There are others who are made eunuchs by men, those who are made so by philosophers, others who are made weak toward sex from their worship of idols, and still others who by heretical persuasion feign chastity so as to falsely claim the truth of religion. None of the above is receptive to the kingdom of heaven. Only the person who for Christ seeks chastity wholeheartedly and cuts off sexual impurity altogether [is the genuine eunuch]. So he adds, “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it,” so that each of us should look to his own strength as to whether he can carry out the commands of virginity and chastity. Chastity in itself is agreeable and alluring; but one must look to one’s strength so that “he who is able to receive this may receive it.” It is as if the Lord with his words were urging on his soldiers to the reward of chastity with these words: He who is able to receive this let him receive it; he who is able to fight, let him fight and conquer.

Commentary on Matthew 3.19.12

(Verse 12.) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. There are three types of eunuchs: those who are eunuchs from birth, those who are made eunuchs by men, and those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Some are born eunuchs, others are made eunuchs by men, and others choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And those who can accept it should accept it. A reward is promised to these people, but to the previous ones, for whom the necessity of chastity is not voluntary, nothing is owed at all. We can say differently. There are eunuchs who are born from their mother's womb, who are of a colder nature and do not desire lust. And there are others who are made by humans: whom either philosophers make, or they are softened into women because of the worship of idols: or they pretend chastity due to heretical persuasion, in order to lie about the truth of religion. But none of them will inherit the kingdom of heaven unless he has castrated himself for the sake of Christ. Therefore, it is concluded: He who is able to receive this, let him receive it; so that each person may consider his own abilities, whether he can fulfill the commands of virginity and chastity. For chastity is enticing in itself, attracting anyone to itself. But one's abilities must be considered, so that he who is able to receive it, may receive it. It is like the voice of the Lord urging and inciting his soldiers to the reward of chastity. Let whoever is able to understand, understand; let whoever is able to fight, fight, overcome and triumph.

Commentary on Matthew

He speaks of three kinds of eunuchs, of whom two are carnal, and one spiritual. One, those who are so born of their mother's womb; another, those whom enemies or courtly luxury has made so; a third, those who have made themselves so for the kingdom of heaven, and who might have been men, but become eunuchs for Christ. To them the reward is promised, for to the others whose continence was involuntary, nothing is due.

(cf. Orig. in loc.) Or we may say otherwise. The eunuchs from their mothers' wombs are they whose nature is colder, and not prone to lust. And they that are made so of men are they whom physicians made so, or they whom worship of idols has made effeminate, or who from the influence of heretical teaching pretend to chastity, that they may thereupon claim truth for their tenets. But none of them obtain the kingdom of heaven, save he only who has become a eunuch for Christ's sake. Whence it follows, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; let each calculate his own strength, whether he is able to fulfil the rules of virginity and abstinence. For in itself continence is sweet and alluring, but each man must consider his strength, that he only that is able may receive it. This is the voice of the Lord exhorting and encouraging on His soldiers to the reward of chastity, that he who can fight might fight and conquer and triumph.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. There are few, He says, who can achieve this virginity. For there are some who are eunuchs from their mother's womb, that is, by their physical temperament are never aroused towards sexual intercourse, so they are chaste without thereby deriving any profit. And there are those who have been made eunuchs by men. Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake are not those who have castrated themselves (for that is an accursed deed), but those who exercise self-control. You may also understand it this way. He is a eunuch by nature who, on account of his physical temperament, is not easily aroused to carnal pleasures. He who is made a eunuch by men is he who is guided by human teaching to cut off the burning of carnal desires. He who makes himself a eunuch is he who is instructed by no one else but by himself, and who, self-taught, inclines towards chastity. So this one is best who is guided not by another but by himself to the kingdom of heaven. Christ wants us of our own free will to practice virtue, saying, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." For Christ neither demands virginity, nor dissolves marriage, but He puts virginity first.

Commentary on Matthew

For as the deed without the will does not constitute a sin; so a righteous act is not in the deed unless the will go with it. That therefore is honourable continence, not which mutilation of body of necessity enforces, but which the will of holy purpose embraces.

For they are born such, just as others are born having six or four fingers. For if God according as He formed our bodies in the beginning, had continued the same order unchangeably, the working of God would have been brought into oblivion among men. The order of nature is therefore changed at times from its nature, that God the framer of nature may be had in remembrance.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hence he distinguishes that there is continence in some from nature, sometimes from violence, sometimes from the will. Therefore he touches on three kinds of eunuchs: for some by nature who were born so from their mother's womb. Just as some are born deformed from a defect of the hand, so also some without genitals: and this from God's providence, because if all things happened according to the common course of nature, everything would be attributed to nature, and not to divine providence; hence Wisdom 8:8: she knows signs and wonders before they are done. Likewise some by violence, as those who are castrated by tyrants or barbarians, or who are castrated for the guarding of women. Who were made so by men, whom the cruelty of men castrated, or the care of women. And Jerome says he knows this, because boys were taken and castrated and placed in the house of Nebuchadnezzar. But some by the will, as he says, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Some misunderstood this word, saying that the genitals should be cut off, and certain men are read to have done this, among whom Origen is said to have been. But this has been condemned, and such persons should be separated from the clergy. Hence occasion is given to the error of the Manichaeans, who said that bodily creation was the cause of evil. Likewise occasion is given to the error of the pagans, because some castrate themselves in their sacrifices. Likewise the act is not useful, because such persons, even if they lack the act, are nevertheless not free from concupiscence. Hence Sirach 20:2: the lust of a eunuch shall deflower a young maiden. Therefore it is better for a man to put a bridle on himself than to cut off a member, so as to restrain evil thoughts and desires. Isaiah 1:16: take away the evil of your thoughts from your hearts. Who have made themselves eunuchs, i.e., have given themselves to perpetual chastity, and this for the kingdom of heaven. For sometimes a member is understood by its act, as above at 18:9: if your eye scandalize you, pluck it out and cast it from you. So here the genital members are taken for the act. Hence he castrates himself who dedicates himself to chastity. Or, according to Jerome, those who keep continence were born with a coldness of nature, so that they are not moved to that act. Hence they are called eunuchs on account of the act of eunuchs, which they have on account of the nature they have from the womb. Because some have a certain disposition to some virtue naturally, as Job to mercy, who says in chapter 31:18: from my infancy mercy grew up with me. But some by the will, either through pretense, or taught by heretics, one is made so by men. 2 Timothy 3:5: having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. But some for the reward of eternal life. The first two, namely those who are castrated either naturally or by violence, do not have the merit of eternal life, but only the third group. But is it true of the first that they do not merit? I say that they merit as to the will, although they do not merit as to the act; because although they cannot do it, they can nevertheless will to be able to do it. He that can take, let him take it. Having set forth the difference of continence, here an exhortation is given, as Jerome says. The Lord does as a general does in an army, who when a city is to be taken says: whoever enters the city, this or that will be given to him, as David said to Joab. So he who can take and be continent, let him take it, and not draw back. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:31: be zealous for the better gifts. But what is it that he says? Is not everyone bound to preserve virginity? It seems so, because man is bound to better things. It must be said that it is not a precept but a counsel, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:25: concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel. But what then? Is not man bound to better things? I say that a distinction must be made, namely what is better as to the act or as to the affection. One is not bound to what is better as to the act, but as to the affection, because every rule and every act is determined to something finite and certain: and if one is bound to the better, one is bound to the uncertain. Hence as to exterior acts, because one is not bound to the uncertain, one is not bound to what is better; but as to the affection, one is bound to what is better. Hence he who does not always wish to be better, could not wish without contempt. But what is it that he says, he that can take, let him take it? For either by natural power, and thus no one can; or by the power of grace, and thus anyone can, because it is said in Luke 11:9: ask, and you shall receive. Likewise the grace of God can do all things. I say that the word can includes the power of the will: for there is a firm will and a weak will. For it is certain that a man who has a firm will does not fear many impulses; but when he does not, he falls from an easy impulse. Hence he who can take by the firmness of will, let him take it, and not from nature but from God. Hence we counsel that he who has this from God should take it and be continent. Or he who can according to the opportunity of the time or the condition of the time, as Abraham: hence the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham. Likewise according to condition; because one who is married cannot be continent; hence some are excluded either by reason of time or of condition.

Commentary on Matthew

Christ after a clear allusion to the eunuchs of eastern courts, said there would be eunuchs of the kingdom of heaven. If this does not mean the voluntary enthusiasm of virginity, it could only be made to mean something much more unnatural or uncouth. It is the historical religion that humanises it for us by experience of Franciscans or of Sisters of Mercy. The mere statement standing by itself might very well suggest a rather dehumanised atmosphere; the sinister and inhuman silence of the Asiatic harem and divan. This is but one instance out of scores; but the moral is that the Christ of the Gospel might actually seem more strange and terrible than the Christ of the Church.

The Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 2: The Riddles of the Gospel (1925)

For why is it necessary-if (baptism itself) is not so necessary -that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.

On Baptism

But the Lord exhorting His disciples now become men to condescend to the needs of babes, to be babes to babes, that they may gain babes, says, For of such is the kingdom of heaven. For He Himself also, when He was in the form of God, was made a babe. These things we should attend to, lest in esteeming that more excellent wisdom, and spiritual advancement, as though we were become great we should despise the little ones of the Church, forbidding children to be brought to Jesus.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And He said distinctly, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, not Of these, to show that it was not years, but disposition that determined His judgment, and that the reward was promised to such as had like innocence and simplicity.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Why did the disciples keep the children back? Not because of the children’s wickedness but because it was not the right time. They did not want the Lord to be tired by the great crowd. To them he said, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” For children are ignorant of wickedness. They do not know how to return evil for evil or how to do someone an injury. They do not know how to be lustful or to fornicate or to rob. What they hear, they believe. They love their parents with complete affection. Therefore, beloved, the Lord instructs us that what they are by the gift of nature, we should become by the fear of God, a holy way of life and love of the heavenly kingdom; for unless we are alien to all sin just like children, we cannot come to the Savior.

Interpretation of the Gospels 25

For who were worthy to come to Christ, if simple infancy were thrust away? Therefore he said, Forbid them not. For if they shall turn out saints, why hinder ye the sons from coming to their Father? And if sinners, why do ye pronounce a sentence of condemnation, before you see any fault in them?

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Consequently he satisfies both parties. And first the zeal of justice; secondly he satisfies the devotion of those offering. He says therefore let the little children come to me, i.e., the humble, or the lowly; 1 Corinthians 14:20: do not become children in sense, but in malice be children. And forbid them not, namely the lowly on account of their innocence. For the imperfect should not be forbidden from coming to perfection. For the kingdom of heaven is for such. He says for such, not of these, namely of those who are thus pure through innocence. Above at 18:3: unless you become as this little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Job 22:29: he that has been humbled shall be in glory.

Commentary on Matthew

"But," say they, "God is `good, 'and `most good, ' and `pitiful-hearted, 'and `a pitier, 'and `abundant in pitiful-heartedness, ' which He holds `dearer than all sacrifice, ' `not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance', `a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.

On Modesty

Christ also answers thus, because of that He said, What good thing shall I do? For when we depart from evil and do good, that which we do is called good by comparison with what other men do. But when compared with absolute good, in the sense in which it is here said, There is one good, our good is not good. But some one may say, that because the Lord knew that the purpose of him who thus asked Him was not even to do such good as man can do, that therefore He said, Why askest thou me concerning good? as much as to say, Why do you ask me concerning good, seeing you are not prepared to do what is good. But after this He says, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Where note, that He speaks to him as yet standing without life; for that man is in one sense without life, who is without Him who said, I am the life. Otherwise, every man upon earth may be, not in life itself, but only in its shadow, while he is clad in a body of death. But any man shall enter into life, if he keep himself from dead works, and seek living works. But there are dead words and living words, also dead thoughts and living thoughts, and therefore He says, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Or perhaps these precepts are enough to introduce one, if I may say so, to the entrance of life; but neither these, nor any like them, are enough to conduct one to the more inward parts of life. But whoso transgresses one of these commandments, shall not even come to the entrance in unto life.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The teaching of the law is good, and Christ does not criticize it, but he says, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments,” indicating the beginning of this route but not its completion. Through this he shows that the law is not alien to himself, but perfection comes from himself.

Fragment 97

Wherefore then doth Christ thus reply to him, saying, "There is none good?" Because He came unto Him as a mere man, and one of the common sort, and a Jewish teacher; for this cause then as a man He discourses with him. And indeed in many instances He replies to the secret thoughts of them that come unto Him; as when He saith, "We worship we know what;" and, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." When therefore He saith, "There is none good;" not as putting Himself out from being good doth He say this, far from it; for he said not, "Why dost thou call me good? I am not good;" but, "there is none good," that is, none amongst men.

And when He saith this self-same thing, He saith it not as depriving even men of goodness, but in contradistinction to the goodness of God. Wherefore also He added, "But one, that is, God;" and He said not, "but my Father" that thou mightest learn that He had not revealed Himself to the young man. So also further back He called men evil, saying, "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children." For indeed there too He called them evil, not as condemning the whole race as evil (for by "ye," He means not "ye men"), but comparing the goodness that is in men with the goodness of God, He thus named it; therefore also He added, "How much more shall your Father give good things to them that ask Him?"

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

(Verse 17) Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one good God. Because he had called a good teacher, and not God, or the Son of God, he learns that even a holy man is not good in comparison to God, of whom it is said: Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good (Psalm 117:1). But lest anyone think that the goodness of God excludes the Son of God, we read in another place: The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep (John 10). And in the Prophet, the good Spirit and the good earth. Therefore, the Savior did not reject the testimony of goodness. But the teacher eliminated error without God.

Commentary on Matthew

But because he had styled Him Good Master, and had not confessed Him as God, or as the Son of God, He tells him, that in comparison of God there is no saint to be called good, of whom it is said, Confess unto the Lord, for he is good; (Ps. 118:1.) and therefore He says, There is one good, that is, God. But that none should suppose that by this the Son of God is excluded from being good, we read in another place, The good Shepherd layeth down his life for his sheep. (John 10:11.)

For Our Saviour does not reject this witness to His goodness, but corrected the error of calling Him Good Master apart from God.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The Lord said to a certain young man, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He did not say “If you would have life” but “If you would enter life,” defining that life as eternal life. Let us first consider then the love of this life. For this life is loved, whatever its quality; and however troubled it is, however wretched, people are afraid to end it. Hence we should see, we should consider, how much eternal life is to be loved, when this miserable life that must at some time be ended is so loved. Consider, brothers, how much that life is to be loved when it is a life you never end. You love this life, where you work so much, run, are busy, pant. In this busy life the obligations can scarcely be counted: sowing, plowing, working new land, sailing, grinding, cooking, weaving. And after all this hard work your life comes to an end. Look at what you suffer in this wretched life that you so love. And do you think that you will always live and never die? Temples, rocks, marbles, all reinforced by iron and lead, still fall. And a person thinks that he will never die? Learn therefore, brothers, to seek eternal life, when you will not endure these things but will reign with God forever.

Sermon 84.1

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 63.) This may seem a discrepancy, that Matthew here gives it, Why askest thou me concerning good? whereas Mark and Luke have, Why callest thou me good? For this, Why askest thou me concerning good? may seem rather to be referred to his question, What good thing shall I do? for in that he both mentioned good, and asked a question. But this, Good Master, is not yet a question. Either sentence may be understood thus very appropriately to the passage.

(de Trin. i. 13.) Or, because he sought eternal life, (and eternal life consists in such contemplation in which God is beheld not for punishment, but for everlasting joy,) and knew not with whom he spake, but thought Him only a Son of Man, therefore He says, Why askest thou me concerning good, calling me in respect of what you see in me, Good Master? This form of the Son of Man shall appear in the judgment, not to the righteous only, but to the wicked, and the very sight shall be to them an evil, and their punishment. But there is a sight of My form, in which I am equal to God. That one God therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is alone good, because none see Him to mourning and sorrow, but only to salvation and true joy.

(Serm. 84, 1.) And He said not, If thou desirest life eternal; but, If thou wilt enter into life, calling that simply life, which shall be everlasting. Here we should consider how eternal life should be loved, when this miserable and finite life is so loved.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

These words prove that the Law gave to such as kept it not only temporal promises, but also life eternal. And because the hearing these things made him thoughtful, He saith unto him, Which?

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

17–19

But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto Him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother, and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The Lord directs the enquirer to the commandments of the law, so that the Jews could not say that He despised the law.

Commentary on Matthew

That is why the Lord says, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God." This means, if you call Me good thinking I am one of the teachers, you speak wrongly, for no man is essentially good; both because we are changeable and easily turned away from good, and because, by comparison with God's goodness, human goodness is counted as wickedness.

Commentary on Matthew

Who said to him: why do you ask me? Here he presents the response. First he responds, as is found in Mark, why do you call me good? But here, why do you ask me? Both can be understood. But what Matthew says, why do you ask me? has no difficulty; but according to what Mark says, the Arians adopted the error, saying that the Father is good by essence, the Son by participation; therefore they held the Son to be unequal to the Father. But it should be noted that he says: one is good, God. But by the name of God is understood the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: hence from this every other creature is excluded, because it is not good by essence. But why does he respond in this way? Jerome says that he responds to the man's mind, who was commending that goodness which is customary in a man; because they adhered more to the traditions of men than of God, as is said above at 15:6: you have made void the commandment of God for your traditions. Therefore he rebukes him, because he was asking of him as of a good man, and not as of God. But what is it that he says, why do you ask me about the good? He says this as knowing his disposition, because he did not have the mind to obey the good, and every temporal good is imperfect and a shadow in comparison with the divine good; Isaiah 64:6: all our justices are as the rag of a menstruous woman. Hence all these goods are from God; therefore if you wish to have them, ask of him: for he alone is good; Psalm 135:1: praise the Lord, for he is good. Therefore have recourse to God. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. For some have imperfect life, some perfect life, and some are totally outside of life, as those who are in sin, or unbelievers, because the just man lives by faith (Heb 10:38). Some therefore have an incipient and imperfect life, as the just in this world; but those have a perfect life who are already in eternal life; hence if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments, because man is led in through the commandments. Ezekiel 20:11: I gave them my commandments and showed them my judgments. But were the commandments sufficient for salvation? I say no, except through faith in the mediator and through charity; hence the Apostle in Galatians 2:21: if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain. Likewise Proverbs 7:2: keep my commandments, and you shall live.

Commentary on Matthew

These commandments are sufficient for someone entering on the ground level of the path of eternal life. But they are not sufficient to lead one to the higher life, and certainly not to perfection. One who fails in just one of these commandments cannot even enter the beginnings of life. Anyone who wishes to enter the early stages of the path of life must be free from adultery and murder and any kind of theft. For just as the adulterer and murderer will not enter into life, so neither will the thief. Many of those who are said to believe in Christ are guilty of this sin. Just look at their daily business and the way money is entrusted to them and the crafts they practice.

Commentary on Matthew 15.13

This young man has grown impudent from studying the law. He is worried about his salvation. Jesus sends him back to the law so that he might understand that, in the very thing in which he takes pride, he has as yet done no righteous work. For the Lord answered him with the words of the law. But the young man, like the boastful and impudent people of whom he is a type, put his trust in the law, but he did not really comply with it at all. For they had been ordered not to kill, yet they had killed the prophets. They knew they were not to commit adultery, yet they had brought corruption on the faith and adultery on the law and had worshiped other gods. They knew not to steal, yet by stealth they had dissolved the commandments of the law, before Christ restored the freedom of believing in the faith. They knew not to bear false witness, yet they denied that Christ rose from the dead. They were ordered to honor father and mother, yet they had separated themselves from the family of God the Father and their mother the church. They were ordered to love their neighbor as themselves, yet they persecuted Christ, who had assumed the body of us all and had become neighbor to each one of us by the condition of the assumed body; they persecuted him to the punishment of the cross. So the young man was ordered to cast off and cut out all these vices and to return to the law.

Commentary on Matthew 19.5

Therefore when Christ said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," he saith, "Which?" Not tempting, far from it, but supposing there were some others besides those of the law that should procure him life, which was like one who was very desirous.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

18–19

(Verse 18, 19.) But if you want to enter life, keep the commandments. He said to him, 'Which ones?' Jesus replied, 'You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony. Honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.' This young man is tempting, and from this we can prove that when the Lord tells him, 'If you want to enter life, keep the commandments,' he deceitfully asks what those commandments are: as if he himself had not read them, or as if the Lord could command something contrary to God.

Commentary on Matthew

When Christ says to him, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments,” the man expects him to add immediately, “my commandments.” “Which ones?” he asks. He was quite deceived in his expectation. For Christ did not answer him as he expected but simply pointed him to the law. This is not because the law is perfection, for “no one is justified by the law,” as it is written, but because the life lived according to law is a kind of introduction to the eternal life, briefly acquainting trainees to the things above. “For the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ.” The law is the starting point for social justice. Christ is the perfection. For the beginning of good is to act justly, he says. Just action then is shown by the law, but goodness is shown by Christ. The law taught us to repay those who wish to harm us, as in “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” But Christ taught us to let go such balanced vengeance with a view to the greater good, teaching that “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.”

Fragment 218

18–19

And Jesus, condescending as to a weak one, most graciously set out to him the precepts of the Law; Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder; and of all these precepts follows the exposition, And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For the Apostle says, Whoso loveth his neighbour has fulfilled the Law? (Prov. 13:10.) But it should be enquired, why the Lord has enumerated only the precepts of the Second Table? Perhaps because this young man was zealous in the love of God, or because love of our neighbour is the step by which we ascend to the love of God.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

He said to him: which? There follows the exposition of the response, in which he recounts the commandments. And first he sets forth the commandments; secondly the root, at you shall love your neighbor as yourself. He says therefore Jesus said: you shall not kill etc. And why does he not mention the commandments of the first table? Because he saw him inclined to the love of God; therefore it was not necessary. Likewise these are preliminary to love. And first he sets forth the negative; secondly the affirmative. First he begins from the greater: you shall not kill, which is against life in act; you shall not commit adultery, which is against life in potency; you shall not steal, which is against the goods of the person; you shall not bear false witness, which is against the person.

Commentary on Matthew

Are we to paint ourselves out that our neighbours may perish? Where, then, is (the command), "Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself? " "Care not merely about your own (things), but (about your) neighbour's? " No enunciation of the Holy Spirit ought to be (confined) to the subject immediately in hand merely, and not applied and carried out with a view to every occasion to which its application is useful.

On the Apparel of Women Book 2

Likewise he sets forth the affirmative: honor your father. Then he sets forth the root: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Romans 13:8: he that loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Commentary on Matthew

"My work was my subsistence." Nay, but "all things are to be sold, and divided to the needy." "But provision must be made for children and posterity.

On Idolatry

Someone might ask, If a perfect person is one who possesses all the virtues and no longer acts out of malice, how can the person who sells all his possessions and gives it to the poor then be perfect? For granted someone has done this, how will he go forth instantly without rage if he has previously been subject to rage? How will he instantly be immune to grief and rise above all the worries that can beset someone and cause him grief? How can he be free from all fear, whether of troubles or of death or those things which can upset the still imperfect soul? How will it be that anyone who sells his possessions and gives them to the poor will lack all desire?More wisely a believer would seem to meet the question by keeping to the literal meaning and not expounding it allegorically. You decide for yourself whether what is said is worthily said according to its context or not. Some will say that anyone who gives to the poor is helped by their prayers. He takes for his salvation the abundance of the spiritual goods of those who are poor in material possessions to meet his own lack, as the apostle suggests in the second letter to the Corinthians. Who else would have this happen to him and be so greatly helped? For God listens to the prayers of so many poor people who have been relieved. Among them perhaps are people like the apostles or at any rate a little inferior to them, poor in material effects but rich in spiritual gifts.

Commentary on Matthew 15.16-17.26

If every commandment is fulfilled in this one word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and if he is perfect who has fulfilled every command, how is it that the Lord said to the young man, If thou wilt be perfect, when he had declared, All these have I kept from my youth up. Perhaps that he says, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, was not said by the Lord, but added by some one, for neither Mark nor Luke have given it in this place. Or otherwise; It is written in the Gospela according to the Hebrews, that, when the Lord said, Go, and sell all that thou hast, the rich man began to scratch his head, being displeased with the saying. Then the Lord said unto him, How sayest thou, I have kept the Law, and the Prophets, since it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself? For how many of thy brethren sons of Abraham, clothed in filth, perish for hunger? Thy house is full of many good things, and nothing goes thereout to them. The Lord then, desiring to convict this rich man, says to him, If thou will be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; for so it will be seen if thou dost indeed love thy neighbour as thyself. But if he is perfect who has all the virtues, how does he become perfect who sells all that he has and gives to the poor? For suppose one to have done this, will he thereby become forthwith free from anger, desire, having every virtue, and abandoning all vice? Perhaps wisdom may suggest, that he that has given his goods to the poor, is aided by their prayers, receiving of their spiritual abundance to his want, and is made in this way perfect, though he may have some human passions. Or thus; He that thus exchanged his riches for poverty, in order that he might become perfect, shall have assistance to become wise in Christ, just, chaste also, and devoid of all passion; but not so as that in the moment when he gave up all his goods, he should forthwith become perfect; but only that from that day forward the contemplation of God will begin to bring him to all virtues. Or again, it will pass into a moral exposition, and say, that the possessions of a man are the acts of his mind. Christ then bids a man to sell all his evil possessions, and as it were to give them over to the virtues which should work the same, which were poor in all that is good. For as the peace of the Apostles returns to them again, (Mat. 10:13.) unless there be a son of peace, so all sins return upon their actors, when one will no longer indulge his evil propensities; and thus there can be no doubt that he will straightway become perfect who in this sense sells all his possessions. It is manifest that he that does these things, has treasure in heaven, and is himself become of heaven; and he will have in heaven treasure of God's glory, and riches in all God's wisdom. Such an one will be able to follow Christ, for he has no evil possession to draw him off from so following

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

What then saith Christ? Since He was going to enjoin something great, He setteth forth the recompenses, and saith, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come, and follow me."

Seest thou how many prizes, how many crowns, He appoints for this race? If he had been tempting, He would not have told him these things. But now He both saith it, and in order to draw him on, He also shows him the reward to be great, and leaves it all to his own will, by all means throwing into the shade that which seemed to be grievous in His advice. Wherefore even before mentioning the conflicts and the toil, He shows him the prize, saying "If thou wilt be perfect," and then saith, "Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor," and straightway again the rewards, "Thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come, and follow me." For indeed to follow Him is a great recompense. "And thou shalt have treasure in Heaven."

For since his discourse was of money, even of all did He advise him to strip himself, showing that he loses not what he hath, but adds to his possessions, He gave him more than He required him to give up; and not only more, but also as much greater as Heaven is greater than earth, and yet more so.

But He called it a treasure, showing the plenteousness of the recompense, its permanency, its security, so far as it was possible by human similitudes to intimate it to the hearer. It is not then enough to despise wealth, but we must also maintain poor men, and above all things follow Christ; that is, do all the things that are ordered by Him, be ready for slaughter and daily death. "For if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." So that to cast away one's money is a much less thing than this last commandment, to shed even one's very blood; yet not a little doth our being freed from wealth contribute towards this.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

If it were good to have gold, Christ, who gave the unutterable blessings, would have given this to His disciples. But now so far from giving it them, He forbad them to have it. Wherefore Peter also, so far from being ashamed of poverty, even glories in it, saying, "Silver and gold have I none; but what I have give I thee." And who of you would not have desired to utter this saying? Nay, we all would extremely, perhaps some one may say. Then throw away thy silver, throw away thy gold. "And if I throw it away, thou wilt say, shall I receive the power of Peter?" Why, what made Peter blessed, tell me? Was it indeed to have lifted up the lame man? By no means, but the not having these riches, this procured him Heaven. For of those that wrought these miracles, many fell into hell, but they, who did those good things, attained a kingdom. And this you may learn even of Peter himself. For there were two things that he said, "Silver and gold have I none;" and, "In the name of Jesus Christ rise up and walk."

Which sort of thing then made Him glorious and blessed, the raising up the lame man, or the casting away his money? And this you may learn from the Master of the conflicts Himself. What then doth He Himself say to the rich man seeking eternal life? He said not, "raise up the lame," but, "Sell thy goods, and give to the poor, and come and follow me, and thou shall have treasure in Heaven."

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 90

It is in our power whether we wish to be perfect. Yet whoever wishes to be perfect ought to sell what he has—and not sell them in part, as Ananias did and Sapphira, but to sell it all. When he has sold it to give it all to the poor, he has begun to prepare for himself a treasure in the kingdom of heaven. Nor is this sufficient for perfection unless after despising riches he follows the Savior, that is, abandons evil and does good. For more easily is a little purse despised than one’s will. Many abandon their wealth but do not follow the Savior. To follow the Savior is to be an imitator of him and walk in his steps. Anyone who says that he believes in Christ must himself also walk in the steps he walked in.

Commentary on Matthew 3.19.21

(Verse 21.) If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. It is in our power to choose to be perfect. However, whoever wishes to be perfect must sell what they have: and not sell only a portion, as Ananias and Sapphira did (Act. V); but sell everything: and when they have sold, give everything to the poor, and thus prepare for themselves treasure in the kingdom of heaven. And this is not enough for perfection unless one follows the Savior after despising riches, that is, by leaving behind evils and doing good. For it is easier to despise a purse than pleasure. Many who leave behind riches do not follow the Lord. But he who is an imitator of the Lord follows him and walks in his footsteps. For whoever says that they believe in Christ should walk as he walked (1 John 2:6).

Commentary on Matthew

(cont. Vigilant. 15.) That Vigilantius asserts that they who retain the use of their property, and from time to time divide their incomes among the poor, do better than they who sell their possessions and lavish them in one act of charity, to him, not I, but God shall make answer, If thou wilt be perfect, Go and sell. That which you so extol, is but the second or third grade; which we indeed admit, only remembering that what is first is to be set before what is third or second.

For many who leave their riches do not therefore follow the Lord; and it is not sufficient for perfection that they despise money, unless they also follow the Saviour, that unless having forsaken evil, they also do what is good. For it is easier to contemn the hoard than quit the propensityb; therefore it follows, And come and follow me; for he follows the Lord who is his imitator, and who walks in his steps.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(de. Op. Monach. 25.) Nor need it be made a scruple in what monasteries, or to the indigent brethren of what place, any one gives those things that he has, for there is but one commonwealth of all Christians. Therefore wheresoever any Christian has laid out his goods, in all places alike he shall receive what is necessary for himself, shall receive it of that which is Christ's.

(cont. Faust. v. 9.) Nor are such only partakers in the kingdom of heaven, who, to the end they may be perfect, sell or part with all that they have; but in these Christian ranks are numbered by reason of a certain communication of their charity a multitude of hired troops; those to whom it shall be said in the end, I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; (Mat. 25:35.) whom be it far from us to consider excluded from life eternal, as they who obey not the commands of the Gospel.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The rich young man claimed to have kept the commandments. Then he heard the greater commandment: "If you wish to be perfect, you still lack one thing: sell all that you have and give it to the poor"; you will not lose it, but "you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." What good does it do you if you follow the law and do not follow me? He went away sad and sorrowful, as you have heard, for he had great wealth.What he heard, we too have heard. The Word of Christ is the gospel. He sits in heaven, but he does not cease to speak on earth. Let us not be deaf, for he shouts. Let us not be dead, for he thunders. If you are not willing to do the greater commandments, do the lesser ones. If the burden of the greater is too much for you, take up the lesser. Why are you slow to do either? Why do you oppose both? The greater commandments are "Sell everything that you have and give to the poor and follow me." The lesser are "You shall not commit murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not steal; honor your father and mother; love your neighbor as yourself." So do these things. Why do I shout to you that you must sell your possessions when I cannot get you to admit that you should not take someone else's? You have heard, "You shall not steal." You rob. Before the eyes of so great a judge, I now hold you not a thief but a robber. Spare yourself; pity yourself. This life still gives you time. Don't reject reproof. Yesterday you were a thief; do not also be one today. Perhaps you have also been one today? Do not be one tomorrow. Sometime end your sin and expect good reward. You want to have your goods, but you are unwilling to be good. Your life is contrary to your hopes. If it is a great good to have a good house, how great an evil is it to have an evil soul?

Sermon 85.1

(Gennadius, de Eccles. Dogm. 36.) It is good to distribute with discrimination to the poor; it is better, with resolve of following the Lord, to strip one's self of all at once, and freed from anxiety to suffer want with Christ.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But to those who would be perfect in grace, He shows how they may come to perfection, Jesus saith unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go, and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor. Mark the words; He said not, Go, and consume all thou hast; but Go, and sell; and not some, as did Ananias and Sapphira, but All. And well He added, that thou hast, for what we have are our lawful possessions. Those therefore that he justly possessed were to be sold; what had been gained unjustly were to be restored to those from whom they had been taken. And He said not, Give to thy neighbours, nor to the rich, but to the poor.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

See two kinds of life which we have heard set before men; the Active, to which pertains, Thou shalt not kill, and the rest of the Law; and the Contemplative, to which pertains this, If thou wilt be perfect. The active pertains to the Law, the contemplative to the Gospel; for as the Old Testament went before the New, so good action goes before contemplation.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

21–22

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me. But when the man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Everything, He says, which you say you have accomplished, you have done by fulfilling only the letter of the law, as do the Jews. But if you would be perfect, that is, be My disciple and a Christian, go and sell all that you have, and give everything all at once, keeping nothing back with which to give alms continuously. For He did not say, "give repeatedly to the poor," but "give" once and for all and be stripped of your wealth. But since there are some who give alms but who lead a life full of every kind of filth, He adds, "and come and follow Me," that is, possess every other virtue as well. The young man, however, was sorrowful, for though he desired eternal life, and the soil of his heart was deep and fertile, yet the thorns of wealth were choking him. For it says, "he had great possessions." He who has few possessions is not similarly restrained by them, for the bond of many possessions is more tyrannical. Because the Lord was conversing with a rich man, He said, "Do you love wealth? Know that you will have treasure in heaven."

Commentary on Matthew

Jesus said to him: if you wish to be perfect, go etc. First the pursuit is presented; secondly the way; thirdly, because it is difficult, the reward is presented; fourthly the consummation of perfection. He says therefore if you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor. For we ought to strive toward perfection; Hebrews 6:1: leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect. But Origen asks: the perfection of the law is love; but he had said you shall love your neighbor as yourself; why then did he say if you wish to be perfect, since he was already perfect? Some say that in certain manuscripts that passage you shall love your neighbor as yourself is not included. And this is clear, because in Mark it is not included. Otherwise it can be said that he said it, but not in this order, because in the Gospel of the Nazarenes it is thus: the Lord said, you shall not kill etc., up to the passage about love. And afterwards follows, all these etc., and then follows, you shall love your neighbor etc. Nevertheless the solution is clear, because love of neighbor is twofold, namely love according to the common way, and love of perfection. Hence he says go and sell all etc., not a part, as Ananias and Sapphira did, as is found in Acts 5:2. And give to the poor, not to the rich. 1 Corinthians 13:3: if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor. Psalm 111:9: he has distributed, he has given to the poor. And not to one, but to many. But what of this? Would he not immediately be perfect? It seems not, because passions are still in him; therefore he is not perfect in virtue. Origen says that he is immediately perfect, just as those are perfect to whom he distributed his goods. 2 Corinthians 8:14: let your abundance supply their want, and let their abundance be a supplement to your want. Hence the perfection of those passes into him, just as he that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive the reward of a prophet etc., above at 10:41. Hence the way of perfection is not go and sell all that you have; but only what follows, and give to the poor. Another response is if you wish to be perfect, not that you would immediately be perfect, but you will have a certain beginning of perfection, because unburdened of these things, you will be able more easily to contemplate heavenly things. Augustine says that vigils and such things are instruments of perfection; but in what follows is perfection, and follow me. Hence above at 4:20: Peter and Andrew, leaving all things, followed him. And so also Matthew above at 9:9. But when you give up all these things, the better use is to give to the poor, and in this one's neighbor must be considered. Hence if perfection is not in these things, in what does it consist? It must be said that it consists in the perfection of charity; Colossians 3:14: above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection. Hence the love of God is perfection, but the relinquishing of things is the way to perfection. And how? Augustine in the book of Eighty-three Questions says that the increase of charity is the diminishing of cupidity; the perfection of charity is no cupidity. Therefore he is perfect in charity who loves God even to the contempt of himself and his own. Hence it is difficult and practically impossible for anyone to possess riches without being enticed by them: and this is clear from Gregory, of whom it is read that when he thought he could better serve Christ in a secular guise, so many things began to spring up against him that he was held not only in appearance, but also in mind. Therefore nothing makes the spirit so free as not being occupied with riches: and this is the way of perfection. Hence it is one thing to be perfect, and another to have the state of perfection. Whoever has perfect charity even to the contempt of himself and his own possesses perfection. The state of perfection is twofold, that of prelates and of religious; but equivocally, because the state of religious is for acquiring perfection; hence to this man it was said: if you wish to be perfect, and if you wish to come to the state of perfection. But the state of prelacy is not for acquiring perfection for oneself, but for communicating what has been acquired: hence the Lord, in the last chapter of John (21:17), said to Peter: Peter, if you love me, feed my sheep; and he did not say if you wish to be perfect etc. Hence such is the difference between the perfection of religious and of prelates as between a student and a master. Hence to a student it is said: if you wish to learn, enter the schools to learn. To a master it is said: teach and bring to completion. Hence the state of the religious is more secure, because ignorance is not imputed to them as it is to a prelate. Hence just as it would be ridiculous for a master to know nothing, so etc. But granted that each does what pertains to him, and makes good use of his office, I say that there is no comparison except as between a student and a master: hence a prelate is in a more perfect state, even if you were to give Elijah or anyone whatsoever. But there is a question: if a prelate is perfect, is he not bound to sell all things? I say that this would follow if in the words go and sell all that you have there were perfection; but there is not, but it is the way and the preamble to acquiring perfection; therefore it is not necessary that he sell what he has. But because it rarely happens that one has perfection together with riches, by one who comes to perfection all things must be relinquished; therefore the Lord gives what is easier. Hence if a prelate were suitable and administered his charge well, I say that he would be more perfect; just as someone can say: I wish to enter the schools to learn, but it is presumptuous to say, when one knows nothing, that he wishes to be a master. Hence Augustine in the City of God: the higher office, without which the people cannot be governed, even if it is decently administered, is indecently sought. Likewise it is one thing to be a prelate and another to be in the state of a prelate. Are parish priests or pastors in the state of perfection? I say that they are not in the state, because they do not constitute a state. Every state is given with solemnity, as the order of the episcopate and religious life. But when a parish is given, it is not given with solemnity; hence they do not have the state of perfection: which is clear, because to some are committed care and administration, and if one has not been promoted, he can give it up and marry, and sometimes has become a religious. But a bishop would not give up the episcopate except with the permission of a superior; a pastor can do so by entering religious life. If, however, he were in a more perfect state, he would now fall from the state, and so would sin: hence he can have perfection according to act, but not the state; because no state is given except with solemnity. Go therefore and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, because through this you will have a great reward, because the reward corresponds to the merit. And you shall have treasure in heaven. In a treasure there are two things, stability and abundance. You shall have a treasure and an abundance of spiritual goods. Psalm 111:3: glory and riches are in his house. Isaiah 33:6: and faith shall be in your times, the riches of salvation, wisdom and knowledge. And come, follow me. Here is the end of perfection. Hence those are perfect who follow God with their whole heart. Hence Genesis 17:1: walk before me, and be perfect. And follow me, i.e., imitate the life of Christ; hence above at 16:24: if any man will come after me, let him deny himself. For imitation consists in the care of preaching, teaching, and having charge of souls. Hence Chrysostom says: it was said to Peter, follow me, namely in taking up the care of the whole world. Job 23:11: my foot has kept to his steps.

Commentary on Matthew

What am I to fasten on as the cause of this madness, except the weakness of faith, ever prone, to the concupiscences of worldly joys?-which, indeed, is chiefly found among the wealthier; for the more any is rich, and inflated with the name of "matron," the more capacious house does she require for her burdens, as it were a field wherein ambition may run its course. To such the churches look paltry. A rich man is a difficult thing (to find) in the house of God; and if such an one is (found there), difficult (is it to find such) unmarried.

To His Wife Book 2

23–24

The arrogant young man, when told to make good his failure to obey the law, is downcast and sad. To the people of which he is a prototype, the cross and Passion are a stumbling block. There is no salvation for this young man there. But he glories in the law, despises the Gentiles and refuses to cross into the freedom of the gospel; therefore it will be difficult for him to enter the kingdom of heaven. For few of them—and compared with the multitude of the Gentiles they are very rare—were those Jews who would believe. It was difficult for them to bend their will, long hardened under the law, to the gospel’s preaching of humility. But more easily will the camel pass through the eye of a needle. A camel cannot fit into the eye of a needle, nor can the bulk of the huge beast be received by the narrow mouth of the tiny hole. In the beginning of this book in discussing John’s clothing I pointed out that the camel signifies the Gentiles. For this beast obeys the word, is restrained by fear, is tolerant of fasting and kneels to take on its burden with a kind of ordered discipline. In this comparison the wildness of the Gentiles has been tamed by obedience to God’s commandments. These then enter the very narrow path of the heavenly kingdom, that is, the needle, which is the preaching of the gospel word. By it the wounds of the body are stitched together, the torn clothing is rewoven, and death itself is pricked. Therefore this is the route of this new preaching. Into it the weakness of the Gentiles will enter with less difficulty than the opulence of the rich man, that is, of the one taking pride in the law.

Commentary on Matthew 19.10-11

23–24

To have riches is no sin; but moderation is to be observed in our havings. For how shall we communicate to the necessities of the saints, if we have not out of what we may communicate?

It is a dangerous toil to become rich; and guiltlessness occupied in increasing its wealth has taken upon itself a sore burden; the servant of God gains not the things of the world, clear of the sins of the world. Hence is the difficulty of entering the kingdom of heaven.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

What then saith Christ? "How hardly shall the rich enter into the kingdom of Heaven!" blaming not riches but them that are held in subjection by them. But if the rich man "hardly," much more the covetous man. For if not to give one's own be an hindrance to entering the kingdom, even to take of other men's goods, think how much fire it heapeth up.

Why can it have been, however, that He said to His disciples, that "hardly shall a rich man enter in," they being poor men, and having no possessions? Instructing them not to be ashamed of their poverty, and, as it were, excusing Himself to them for suffering them to have nothing.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

(Verse 23) But Jesus said to his disciples: Amen I say to you, that it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And how did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being rich, enter into the kingdom of heaven (Genesis 13 and 36), and in the Gospel Matthew and Zacchaeus, leaving their riches behind, are proclaimed by the testimony of the Lord? But it must be considered that at the time they entered, they ceased to be rich. Therefore, they will not enter as long as they are rich. And yet, because riches are difficult to despise, he did not say, 'It is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven,' but rather 'It is difficult.' Where difficulty is presented, not impossibility is claimed; but rarity is demonstrated.

Commentary on Matthew

Because riches once gained are hard to be despised, He saith not it is impossible, but it is hard. Difficulty does not imply the impossibility, but points out the infrequency of the occurrence.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

"How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And I say unto you, that it is easier for a camel to enter in through the eye of a needle, than a rich man into the kingdom of God." Now by a camel He means not the animal of that name, but a thick cable rather: for it is the custom of those well versed in navigation to call the thicker cables "camels."

Observe however, that He does not altogether cut away the hope of the rich, but reserves for them a place and way of salvation. For He did not say that it is impossible for a rich man to enter in, but that he does so with difficulty.

Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Sermon 122

Whence in Mark the Lord expounding the meaning of this saying, speaks thus, It is hard for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:24.) They trust in riches, who build all their hopes on them.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But though there be a difference between having and loving riches, yet it is safer neither to have nor to love them.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

23–24

Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. As long as a man is rich and he has in excess while others do not have even the necessities, he can in no way enter the kingdom of heaven. But when all riches have been shed, then he is not rich and so he can enter. For it is just as impossible for a man with wealth to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. See how Christ first said it was difficult to enter, but here that it is completely impossible. Some say that "camel" is not the animal, but the thick cable used by sailors to cast their anchors.

Commentary on Matthew

(ap. Anselm.) The Lord took occasion from this rich man to hold discourse concerning the covetous; Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, &c.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And Jesus said to his disciples. Here the reason for the aforementioned doctrine is presented. And first the reason is assigned; secondly he responds to the astonishment of the disciples, at and when they had heard these things, the disciples wondered very much. He says therefore and Jesus said to his disciples etc. The occasion for saying this word was that the man went away sad, because he had said, go, sell what you have etc. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven: he does not say impossible. And he says rich man, not one who has riches: because some have them and do not love them, but others have them, and love them, and trust in them. Those who have and do not love can enter into the kingdom of heaven. For if this were not so, Paul would not say: charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches. But one who has and loves, it is difficult, etc. Above at 13:22: the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke up the word. Proverbs 28:20: he that makes haste to be rich shall not be innocent. Sirach 31:8: blessed is the rich man who is found without blemish, and who has not gone after gold etc. But this is difficult; therefore it follows: who is he, and we will praise him? For he has done wonderful things in his life.

Commentary on Matthew

The Christian view is that men were created to be in a certain relationship to God (if we are in that relation to Him, the right relation to one another will follow inevitably). Christ said it was difficult for "the rich" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven,1 referring, no doubt, to "riches" in the ordinary sense. But I think it really covers riches in every sense—good fortune, health, popularity, and all the things one wants to have. All these things tend—just as money tends—to make you feel independent of God, because if you have^them you are happy already and contented in this life. You don't want to turn away to anything more, and so you try to rest in a shadowy happiness as if it could last forever. But God wants to give you a real and eternal happiness. Consequently He may have to take all these "riches" away from you: if He doesn't, you will go on relying on them. It sounds cruel, doesn't it? But I am beginning to find out that what people call the cruel doctrines are really the kindest ones in the long run. I used to think it was a "cruel" doctrine to say that troubles and sorrows were "punishments." But I find in practice that when you are in trouble, the moment you regard it as a "punishment," it becomes easier to bear. If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it's not so bad.

Imagine a set of people all living in the same building. Half of them think it is a hotel, the other half think it is a prison. Those who think it a hotel might regard it as quite intolerable, and those who thought it was a prison might decide that it was really surprisingly comfortable. So that what seems the ugly doctrine is one that comforts and strengthens you in the end. The people who try to hold an optimistic view of this world would become pessimists: the people who hold a pretty stern view of it become optimistic.

Answers to Questions on Christianity, from God in the Dock

The dangers of apparent self-sufficiency explain why Our Lord regards the vices of the feckless and dissipated so much more leniently than the vices that lead to worldly success. Prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in that danger.

The Problem of Pain, Ch. 6

One of the dangers of having a lot of money is that you may be quite satisfied with the kinds of happiness money can give and so fail to realise your need for God. If everything seems to come simply by signing cheques, you may forget that you are at every moment totally dependent on God. Now quite plainly, natural gifts carry with them a similar danger. If you have sound nerves and intelligence and health and popularity and a good upbringing, you are likely to be quite satisfied with your character as it is. 'Why drag God into it?' you may ask. A certain level of good conduct comes fairly easily to you. You are not one of those wretched creatures who are always being tripped up by sex, or dipsomania, or nervousness, or bad temper. Everyone says you are a nice chap and (between ourselves) you agree with them. You are quite likely to believe that all this niceness is your own doing: and you may easily not feel the need for any better kind of goodness. Often people who have all these natural kinds of goodness cannot be brought to recognise their need for Christ at all until, one day, the natural goodness lets them down and their self-satisfaction is shattered. In other words, it is hard for those who are 'rich' in this sense to enter the Kingdom.

Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 10: Nice People or New Men

But having said it was hard; as He proceeds, He shows that it is even impossible, and not merely impossible, but even in the highest degree impossible; and this He showed by the comparison concerning the camel and the needle.

"It is easier" saith He, "for a camel to enter in by the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven." Whence it is shown, that there is no ordinary reward for them that are rich, and are able to practise self command. Wherefore also He affirmed it to be a work of God, that He might show that great grace is needed for him who is to achieve this.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

24–26

(Verse 24 and following) And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, 'Who then can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.' This statement shows that it is not difficult, but impossible. For if a camel cannot enter through the eye of a needle, so a rich person cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, no rich person will be saved. But if we read Isaiah, how the camels of Midian and Ephah come to Jerusalem with gifts and offerings (Isa. 60): and how those who were previously bent and distorted by the corruption of vices enter the gates of Jerusalem, we will see how even these camels, to whom the rich are compared, when they have unloaded the heavy burden of sins and the corruption of the whole body, are able to enter through the narrow gate and the narrow way that leads to life (Above 7). But when the disciples asked and were amazed at the severity of his words, he tempered the severity of his statement with his mercy, saying: What is impossible for men is possible for God.

Commentary on Matthew

24–26

According to this, no rich man can be saved. But if we read Isaiah, how the camels of Midian and Ephah came to Jerusalem with gifts and presents, and they who once were crooked and bowed down by the weight of their sins, enter the gates of Jerusalem, we shall see how these camels, to which the rich are likened when they have laid aside the heavy load of sins, and the distortion of their whole bodies, may then enter by that narrow and strait way that leads to life.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(Mor. xxxv. 16.) Or, by the rich man He intends any one who is proud, by the camel he denotes the right humility. The camel passed through the needle's eye, when our Redeemer through the narrow way of suffering entered in to the taking upon Him death; for that passion was as a needle which pricked the body with pain. But the camel enters the needle's eye easier than the rich man enters the kingdom of heaven; because if He had not first shown us by His passion the form of His humility, our proud stiffness would never have bent itself to His lowliness.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(ap. Anselm.) It is explained otherwise; That at Jerusalem there was a certain gate, called, The needle's eye, through which a camel could not pass, but on its bended knees, and after its burden had been taken off; and so the rich should not be able to pass along the narrow way that leads to life, till he had put off the burden of sin, and of riches, that is, by ceasing to love them.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The Gentile souls are likened to the deformed body of the camel, in which is seen the humpback of idolatry; for the knowledge of God is the exaltation of the soul. The needle is the Son of God, the fine point of which is His divinity, and the thicker part what He is according to His incarnation. But it is altogether straight and without turning; and through the womb of His passion, the Gentiles have entered into life eternal. By this needle is sewn the robe of immortality; it is this needle that has sewn the flesh to the spirit, that has joined together the Jews and the Gentiles, and coupled man in friendship with angels. It is easier therefore for the Gentiles to pass through the needle's eye, than for the rich Jews to enter into the kingdom of heaven. For if the Gentiles are with such difficulty withdrawn from the irrational worship of idols, how much more hardly shall the Jews be withdrawn from the reasonable service of God?

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

He adds something which seems to pertain to impossibility; hence he says and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Above the Lord had said that it was difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; here that it is impossible, just as it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Hence take it that for a rich man who has riches and does not love them, it is difficult; but for one who loves them and trusts in them, it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven. For that a camel cannot enter through the eye of a needle is from nature; but that a rich man who loves riches cannot enter the kingdom of heaven is from divine justice; and sooner could all things be overturned than divine justice be changed. Others, like Jerome, say: impossibility is not indicated, but difficulty. In a certain Gloss whose author is unknown, it is found that in Jerusalem there was a gate called the eye of the needle, through which laden camels could not pass: so a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he unburdens himself from the attachment to riches. But it is easier for a camel to be unburdened than for a rich man to put aside this attachment. Chrysostom explains mystically: by the camel are signified the gentiles, who were burdened with the sin of idolatry; by the rich, the Jews; the needle is Christ, the eye of the needle is the passion. Hence it was easier for the gentile people to pass through the passion of Christ than for the Jews, because they could not come except by leaving behind the ceremonies of the law, and this they would not do. Hence a demon was asked what is the graver sin, and he said to have what belongs to another; to whom it was answered: you lie. On the contrary, he says, because other sinners I often lose, but these I do not lose. Or thus, it is easier etc., so that by the rich man we understand the proud; by the camel, Christ; by the eye of the needle, the passion of Christ: therefore it was easier for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for the proud man to be humbled.

Commentary on Matthew

Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man. Further, she has maintained that if we come to talk of a dangerous environment, the most dangerous environment of all is the commodious environment. I know that the most modern manufacture has been really occupied in trying to produce an abnormally large needle. I know that the most recent biologists have been chiefly anxious to discover a very small camel. But if we diminish the camel to his smallest, or open the eye of the needle to its largest--if, in short, we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this--that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy. Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable. You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck.

Orthodoxy, Ch. VII: The Eternal Revolution

Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god--and always like a god. Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists of an almost furious use of the a fortiori. His "how much more" is piled one upon another like castle upon castle in the clouds. The diction used about Christ has been, and perhaps wisely, sweet and submissive. But the diction used by Christ is quite curiously gigantesque; it is full of camels leaping through needles and mountains hurled into the sea. Morally it is equally terrific; he called himself a sword of slaughter, and told men to buy swords if they sold their coats for them. That he used other even wilder words on the side of non-resistance greatly increases the mystery; but it also, if anything, rather increases the violence. We cannot even explain it by calling such a being insane; for insanity is usually along one consistent channel. The maniac is generally a monomaniac. Here we must remember the difficult definition of Christianity already given; Christianity is a superhuman paradox whereby two opposite passions may blaze beside each other. The one explanation of the Gospel language that does explain it, is that it is the survey of one who from some supernatural height beholds some more startling synthesis.

Orthodoxy, Ch. 9: Authority and the Adventurer (1908)

It has learnt not to respect life; how much more food? [You ask] "How many have fulfilled these conditions? "But what with men is difficult, with God is easy. Let us, however, comfort ourselves about the gentleness and clemency of God in such wise, as not to indulge our "necessities" up to the point of affinities with idolatry, but to avoid even from afar every breath of it, as of a pestilence.

On Idolatry

How is it, then, that we read, "With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible; " and again, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise? " Let me ask you, if you were to manumit your slave (seeing that the same flesh and soul will remain to him, which once were exposed to the whip, and the fetter, and the stripes), will it therefore be fit for him to undergo the same old sufferings? I trow not.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

In this way they hold the Monarchy, but they hold neither the Father nor the Son. Well, but "with God nothing is impossible." True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God? " The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise.

Against Praxeas

At least, when the disciples were troubled, He said, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Therefore, having first "beheld them, He said unto them, The things which are impossible with men, are possible with God." For with a mild and meek look, having soothed their shuddering mind, and having put an end to their distress (for this the evangelist signified by saying, "He beheld them"), then by His words also He relieves them, bringing before them God's power, and so making them feel confidence.

But if thou wilt learn the manner of it likewise, and how what is impossible may become possible, hear. For neither for this end did He say, "The things which are impossible with men, are possible with God," that thou shouldest give it up, and abstain, as from things impossible; but that having considered the greatness of the good work, thou shouldest hasten to it readily, and having besought God to assist thee in these noble contests, shouldest attain unto life.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

This must not be so understood as though it were possible for God to cause that the rich, the covetous, the avaricious, and the proud should enter into the kingdom of heaven; but to cause him to be converted, and so enter.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And Jesus beholding, said to them: with men this is impossible etc. Here he responds to their astonishment, saying: with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. But what is it that he says? For it seems that free will perishes if it is impossible with men. It is true that man has it of himself that he can sin; but to rise again and to do works of salvation, this he does not have of himself without the help of God's grace: for it is God himself who can do these things. Romans 9:16: it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. Hence Job 42:1: I know that you can do all things, and with you nothing is impossible. Hence according to human power it is impossible for man to be saved, because human power does not change the will; but it belongs to God alone to change it, as is found in Philippians 2:13: who works in us both to will and to accomplish.

Commentary on Matthew

The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

"All agents" here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

The Problem of Pain, Chapter 2: Divine Omnipotence

Many people are deterred from seriously attempting Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible. But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper, one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.

We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity—like perfect charity—will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help.

Mere Christianity, Book 3, Chapter 5: Sexual Morality

If you wish to be the Lord's disciple, it is necessary you "take your cross, and follow the Lord: " your cross; that is, your own straits and tortures, or your body only, which is after the manner of a cross. Parents, wives, children, will have to be left behind, for God's sake. Do you hesitate about arts, and trades, and about professions likewise, for the sake of children and parents? Even there was it demonstrated to us, that both "dear pledges," and handicrafts, and trades, are to be quite left behind for the Lord's sake; while James and John, called by the Lord, do leave quite behind both father and ship; while Matthew is roused up from the toll-booth; while even burying a father was too tardy a business for faith.

On Idolatry

Peter had heard the word of Christ when He said, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast. Then he observed that the young man had departed sorrowful, and considered the difficulty of riches entering into the kingdom of heaven; and thereupon he put this question confidently as one who had achieved no easy matter. For though what he with his brother had left behind them were but little things, yet were they not esteemed as little with God, who considered that out of the fulness of their love they had so forsaken those least things, as they would have forsaken the greatest things if they had had them. So Peter, thinking rather of his will than of the intrinsic value of the sacrifice, asked Him confidently, Behold, we have left all.

It may be said, In all things which the Father revealed to Peter that the Son was, righteousness, sanctification, and the like, in all we have followed Thee. Therefore as a victorious athlete, he now asks what are the prizes of his contest.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

27–29

Bearing in mind then all this, let us imitate those things whereby the apostles became great. And whereby did they become great? Hear Peter, saying, "Behold we have forsaken all and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?" Hear also Christ saying to them, "Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones," and, "every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or father, or mother, shall receive an hundredfold in this world, and shall inherit everlasting life." From all worldly things, therefore, let us withdraw ourselves, and dedicate ourselves to Christ, that we may both be made equal to the apostles according to His declaration, and may enjoy eternal life; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 46

27–29

How then should this become possible? If thou cast away what thou hast, if thou empty thyself of thy wealth, if thou refrain from the wicked desire. For in proof that He does not refer it to God alone, but that to this end He said it, that thou shouldest know the vastness of the good work, hear what follows. For when Peter had said, "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee," and had asked, "What shall we have therefore?" having appointed the reward for them; He added, "And every one who hath forsaken houses, or lands, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit eternal life." Thus that which is impossible becometh possible. But how may this very thing be done, one may say, to forsake these? how is it possible for him that is once sunk in such lust of wealth, to recover himself? If he begin to empty himself of his possessions, and cut off what are superfluous. For so shall he both advance further, and shall run on his course more easily afterwards.

Do not then seek all at once, but gently, and by little and little, ascend this ladder, that leads thee up to Heaven. For like as those in fevers having acrid bile abounding within them, when they cast in thereon meats and drinks, so far from quenching their thirst, do even kindle the flame; so also the covetous, when they cast in their wealth upon this wicked lust more acrid than that bile, do rather inflame it. For nothing so stays it as to refrain for a time from the lust of gain, like as acrid bile is stayed by abstinence and evacuations.

But this itself, by what means will it be done? one may say. If thou consider, that whilst rich, thou wilt never cease thirsting, and pining with the lust of more; but being freed from thy possessions, thou wilt be able also to stay this disease. Do not then encompass thyself with more, lest thou follow after things unattainable, and be incurable, and be more miserable than all, being thus frantic.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 63

"Then answered Peter and said unto Him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?"

All which? O blessed Peter; the rod? the net? the boat? the craft? These things dost thou tell me of, as all? Yea, saith he, but not for display do I say these things, but in order that by this question I may bring in the multitude of the poor. For since the Lord had said, "If thou wilt be perfect, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven;" lest any one of the poor should say, What then? if I learn, that thou art made in no respect inferior by this: Peter asks, that thou mayest not learn from Peter and doubt (for indeed he was imperfect as yet, and void of the Spirit), but that, having received the declaration from Peter's Master, thou mayest be confident.

For like as we do (we make things our own often when speaking of the concerns of others), so did the apostle, when he put to Him this question in behalf of all the world. Since that at least he knew with certainty his own portion, is manifest from what had been said before; for he that had already received the keys of the Heavens, much more might feel confidence about the things hereafter.

But mark also how exactly his reply is according to Christ's demand. For He had required of the rich man these two things, to give that he had to the poor, and to follow Him. Wherefore he also expresses these two things, to forsake, and to follow. "For behold we have forsaken all," saith he, "and have followed Thee." For the forsaking was done for the sake of following, and the following was rendered easier by the forsaking, and made them feel confidence and joy touching the forsaking.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 64

And Peter again said not, "Behold, in Thy name we cast out devils;" although he was casting them out, but, "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed Thee; what shall we have?" And Christ again, in answering this apostle, said not, "If any man raise up the lame," but, "Whosoever hath forsaken houses or lands, shall receive an hundredfold in this world, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Let us also then emulate this man, that we may not be confounded, but may with confidence stand at the judgment seat of Christ; that we may win Him to be with us, even as He was with His disciples. For He will be with us, like as He was with them, if we are willing to follow them, and to be imitators of their life and conversation. For in consequence of these things God crowns, and commends men, not requiring of thee to raise the dead, or to cure the lame. For not these things make one to be like Peter, but the casting away one's goods, for this was the apostles' achievement.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 90

(Verse 27) Then Peter answered and said to him: Behold, we have left everything and followed you: What therefore will be for us? Great confidence: Peter was a fisherman, he had not been wealthy, he sought food by hand and skill: and yet he speaks confidently, We have left everything. And because it is not enough to just leave, he adds what is perfect: and followed you. We have done what you commanded, so what reward will you give us?

Commentary on Matthew

Because to forsake is not enough, he adds that which makes perfection, and have followed thee. We have done what thou commandedst us, what reward wilt thou then give us? What shall we have?

He said not only, Ye who have left all, for this did the philosopher Cratesh, and many other who have despised riches, but added, and have followed me, which is peculiar to the Apostles and believers.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

A hermit was asked, ‘What is meant by the text “Narrow and strait is the way” (Matt. 7:14)?’ He answered, ‘Narrow and strait is the way by which a man does violence to his thoughts and for God’s sake breaks down his self-will. This is what was written about the apostles, “Lo, we have left all, and followed thee” (Matt. 19:27).’

The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Then answered Peter and said unto Him, Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? Even though it seems that Peter had not forsaken very much, as he was poor, understand that in actuality he, too, forsook much. For the fewer possessions we humans have, the greater the attachment. But Peter also rejected every worldly pleasure, even natural affection for his parents. For these passions war against the poor as well as the rich.

Commentary on Matthew

Consequently he determines concerning the reward of the perfect. And first the question is presented; secondly the response, at and Jesus said to them. Peter had heard poverty praised, and had heard: go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor. He had also heard that it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven; therefore Peter considered that he had done a great thing, because he had left all things; hence he says then Peter answering said to him: behold we have left all things. And because he had heard not only that, go and sell, but further, and follow me etc.; therefore Peter adds and have followed you. Leaving all things does not make perfection, but leaving all things and following Christ, because many philosophers left all things. But Peter had left a boat and a net. But Peter is praised more for his disposition than for what he left, because with such a ready will he gave them up that he would have given up everything if he had had it. Likewise he knew that Christ knew his will; therefore he says behold we etc. By which he gave an example that those who gave up what they had should not be considered to have given up little, even if they had little. And Jerome says that giving up does not make perfection, but following the Lord. And one follows God in many ways. In mind, through contemplation; Hosea 6:3: we shall know and shall follow on, that we may know the Lord. Hence those follow God who have God before their eyes and know God through the mode of contemplation. Likewise one follows the Lord through the observance of the commandments; John 10:27: my sheep hear my voice, and they follow me. Likewise through the imitation of works; Job 33:11: my foot has followed his steps. Likewise through the contempt of oneself and one's own; above at 16:24: if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Likewise through purity of mind and body; Apocalypse 14:4: these are they who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins, and they follow the Lamb wherever he goes. Voluntary poverty disposes to this following.

Commentary on Matthew

For avoiding it, remedies cannot be lacking; since, even if they be lacking, there remains that one by which you will be made a happier magistrate, not in the earth, but in the heavens.

On Idolatry

In gift giving it is not the gift itself that God praises and approves but the will and sincerity of the giver. He excuses and holds more acceptable the one who gave less but gave it with more perfect sincerity than the one who gave more from a fuller store but with less pure affection. Thus, from what is written about the gifts of the wealthy and from the two mites which the widow in the treasury sent for the poor, it is clear that the same also happens to those who leave everything that they possess for the love of God so as to follow undistractedly the Christ of God. They will do everything according to his word. The one who leaves the greater wealth is not more acceptable than the one who leaves the lesser. This is especially so if he leaves the lesser with his whole heart. What Peter left, along with his brother Andrew, was small and of no value, but when they both heard, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men, immediately they left their nets and followed him.” Yet they were not valued lightly by God, who knew that they had done this with great love. God knew that even if they had been endowed with much wealth they would still not have been distracted by it, nor would their desire to follow Jesus have been thwarted by it.… Those who follow the Savior, therefore, will sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel and will receive this power in the resurrection of the dead. For this is the regeneration, a new birth, when the new heaven and the new earth are established for those who renew themselves, and a New Testament with its chalice is given.

Commentary on Matthew 15.21-22

The disciples had followed Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the laver of baptism, in the sanctification of faith, for this is that regeneration which the Apostles followed, and which the Law could not bestow.

Their following Christ in thus exalting the Apostles to twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, associated them in the glory of the twelve Patriarchs.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

"Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

What then, one may say, shall Judas sit there? By no means. How, then, doth He say, "Ye shall sit on twelve thrones?" How shall the terms of the promise be fulfilled?

Hear how, and on what principle. There is a law ordained of God, recited by Jeremiah, the prophet to the Jews, and in these words: "At what instant I shall speak a sentence concerning a nation and kingdom, to pluck up and destroy; if that nation turn from their evil deeds, I also will repent of the evils, which I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and kingdom to build and to plant it; and if they do evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, I also will repent of the good, which I said I would do unto them."

For the same custom do I observe with respect to the good things as well, saith He. For though I spake of building up, should they show themselves unworthy of the promise, I will no longer do it. Which sort of thing was done with respect to man upon his creation, "For the dread of you," it is said, "and the fear of you shall be on the wild beasts," and it came not to pass, for he proved himself unworthy of the sovereignty, even as did Judas also.

For in order that neither at the denunciations of punishment any men should despair and become more hardened, nor by the promises of good things be rendered causelessly more remiss, He remedies both these evils, by that which I have before mentioned, saying in this way: Though I should threaten, do not despair; for thou art able to repent, and to reverse the denunciation, like the Ninevites. Though I should promise any good thing, grow not remiss because of the promise. For shouldest thou appear unworthy, the fact of my having promised will not advantage thee, but will rather bring punishment. For I promise thee being worthy.

Therefore even then in His discourse with His disciples He did not promise to them simply, for neither did He say, "you," only, but added, "which have followed me," that He might both cast out Judas, and draw towards Him those that should come afterwards. For neither to them only was it said, nor to Judas any more, when he had become unworthy.

Now to the disciples He promised things to come, saying, "Ye shall sit on twelve thrones," for they were now of a higher stamp, and sought after none of the things of the present world, but to the rest He promises also what are here.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 64

But what is, "Judging the twelve tribes of Israel?" This is, "condemning them." For they are not surely to sit as judges, but like as He said the Queen of the South should condemn that generation, and the Ninevites shall condemn them; so now these also. Therefore He said not, the nations, and the world, but the tribes of Israel. For since both the Jews alike and the apostles had been brought up under the same laws, and customs, and polity; when the Jews said, that for this cause they could not believe in Christ, because the law forbade to receive His commandments, by bringing forward these men, who had received the same law, and yet had believed, He condemns all those; like as even already He had said, "therefore they shall be your judges."

And what great thing doth He promise them, it may be said, if what the Ninevites have and the Queen of the South, this these are to have also? In the first place He had promised them many other things before this, and after this doth promise them, and this alone is not their reward.

And besides even in this He intimated by the way something more than these things. For of those He simply said, "The men of Nineveh shall rise up and condemn this generation," and, "The Queen of the South shall condemn it;" but concerning these, not merely thus, but how? "When the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of His glory, then shall ye also sit upon twelve thrones," saith He, declaring, that they also shall reign with Him, and partake of that glory. "For if we suffer," it is said, "we shall also reign with Him." For neither do the thrones signify a sitting (in judgment), for He alone is the one that shall sit and judge, but honor and glory unspeakable did He intimate by the thrones.

To these then He spake of these things, but to all the rest of eternal life and an hundredfold here. But if to the rest, much more to these too, both these things, and the things in this life.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 64

[Daniel 7:9] "I beheld until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of days took His seat. His garment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was composed of fiery flames and its wheels were set on fire. From before His presence there issued forth a rushing, fiery stream." We read something similar in John's Apocalypse: "After these things I was immediately in the Spirit, and lo, a throne was set up in heaven, and one was seated upon the throne; and He who sat upon it had the likeness of jasper and sardine stone, and there was a rainbow round about the throne like the appearance of emerald. Around the throne there were twenty-four other thrones, and upon the twenty-four thrones there sat twenty-four elders, clothed in shining garments; upon their heads was a golden crown, and lightning flashes issued from the throne, and voices and thunder. And in front of the throne there were seven torches of burning fire, which were the seven spirits of God. And in front of the throne lay a glassy sea like unto crystal." (Revelation 4:2-6) And so the many thrones which Daniel saw seem to me to be what John called the twenty-four thrones. And the Ancient of days is the One who, according to John sits alone upon His throne. Likewise the Son of man, who came unto the Ancient of days, is the same as He who, according to John, is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, and the titles of that sort (Revelation 5:5). I imagine that these thrones are the ones of which the Apostle Paul says, "Whether thrones or dominions..." (Colossians 1:16). And in the Gospel we read, "Ye yourselves shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). And God is called the One who sits and who is the Ancient of days, in order that His character as eternal Judge might be indicated. His garment is shining white like the snow, and the hair of His head is like pure wool. The Savior also, when He was transfigured on the mount and assumed the glory of His divine majesty, appeared in shining white garments (Matthew 17:2). And as for the fact that His hair is compared to perfectly pure wool, the even-handedness and uprightness of His judgment is shown forth, a judgment which shows no partiality in its exercise. Moreover He is described as an elderly man, in order that the ripeness of His judgment may be established. His throne consists of fiery flames, in order that sinners may tremble before the severity of the torments, and also that the just may be saved, but so as by fire. The wheels of the throne are set aflame, or else it is the wheels of His chariot which are aflame. In Ezekiel also God is ushered on the scene seated in a four-horse chariot (Ezekiel 1:4-28), and everything pertaining to God is of a fiery consistency. In another place also a statement is made on this subject: "God is a consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24), that we might know that wood, hay and stubble are going to burn up in the day of judgment. And in the Psalms we read: "Fire goeth before Him, and He shall set aflame all His enemies round about Him" (Psalm 97:3). A rushing, fiery stream proceeded from before Him in order that it might carry sinners to hell (Gehenna).

St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER SEVEN

(Verse 28.) But Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He did not say: you who have left all things, for this Crates the philosopher also did, and many others despised riches; but you who have followed me: which properly belongs to the apostles and believers. In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, you will also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel: because they refused to believe in Him, who believed in you.

Commentary on Matthew

Or it may be constructed thus, Ye which have followed me, shall in the regeneration sit, &c.; that is, when the dead shall rise from corruption incorrupt, you also shall sit on thrones of judges, condemning the twelve tribes of Israel, for that they would not believe when you believed.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(de Civ. Dei, xx. 5.) Thus our flesh will be regenerated by incorruption, as our soul also shall be regenerated by faith.

(ubi sup.) From this passage we learn that Jesus will judge with His disciples; whence He says in another place to the Jews, Therefore shall they be your judges. (Mat. 12:27.) And whereas He says they shall sit upon twelve thrones, we need not think that twelve persons only shall judge with Him. For by the number twelve is signified the whole number of those that shall judge; and that because the number seven which generally represents completeness contains the two numbers four and three, which multiplied together make twelve. For if it were not so, as Matthias was elected into the place of the traitor Judas, the Apostle Paul who laboured more than they all should not have place to sit to judge; but he shows that he with the rest of the saints pertains to the number of judges, when he says, Know ye not that we shall judge Angels? (1 Cor. 6:3.)

(Serm. 351. 8.) In the number of judges therefore are included all that have left their all and followed the Lord;

(de Civ. Dei, xx. 5.) The same holds good, by reason of this number twelve, of those that are to be judged. For when it is said, Judging the twelve tribes, yet is not the tribe of Levi, which is the thirteenth, to be exempt from being judged by them; nor shall they judge this nation alone, and not also other nations.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(Mor. x. 31.) For whosoever, urged by the spur of divine lore, shall forsake what he possesses here, shall without doubt gain there the eminence of judicial authority; and shall appear as judge with the Judge, for that he now in consideration of the judgment chastens himself by a voluntary poverty.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Surely they will not be seated? Of course not, but He indicated by means of a throne the great honor they will enjoy. Will Judas also be seated? No; for Christ said, "which have followed Me," that is, "followed Me to the end," but Judas did not follow to the end. By a different interpretation, God often promises good things to those who are worthy. But if they should change and become unworthy, as Judas did, those good things are denied. Similarly with more menacing things, He often threatens but does not carry out the threat, because we have repented. By "regeneration" understand the resurrection of the dead at the Last Judgement.

Commentary on Matthew

For it would come to pass, that in the day of judgment the Jews would allege, Lord, we knew Thee not to be the Son of God when Thou wast in the flesh. For who can discern a treasure buried in the ground, or the sun when obscured by a cloud? The disciples therefore will then answer, We also were men, and peasants, obscure among the multitude, but you priests and scribes; but in us a right will became as it were a lamp of our ignorance, but your evil will became to you a blinding of your science.

Or, by that, In the regeneration, Christ designs the period of Christianity that should be after His ascension, in which men were regenerated by baptism; and that is the time in which Christ sate on the throne of His glory. And hereby you may see that He spake not of the time of the judgment to come, but of the calling of the Gentiles, in that He said not, When the Son of Man shall come sitting upon the throne of his majesty; but only, In the regeneration when he shall sit, which was from the time that the Gentiles began to believe on Christ; according to that, God shall reign over the heathen; God sitteth upon his holy throne. (Ps. 47:8.) From that time also the Apostles have sat upon twelve thrones, that is, over all Christians; for every Christian who receives the word of Peter, becomes Peter's throne, and so of the rest of the Apostles. On these thrones then the Apostles sit, parcelled into twelve divisions, after the variety of minds and hearts, known to God only. For as the Jewish nation was split into twelve tribes, so is the whole Christian people divided into twelve, so as that some souls are numbered with the tribe of Reuben, and so of the rest, according to their several qualities. For all have not all graces alike, one is excellent in this, another in that. And so the Apostles will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, that is, all the Jews, by this, that the Gentiles received the Apostles' word. The whole body of Christians are indeed twelve thrones for the Apostles, but one throne for Christ. For all excellencies are but one throne for Christ, for He alone is equally perfect in all virtues. But of the Apostles each one is more perfect in some one particuar excellence, as Peter in faith; so Peter tests upon his faith, John on his innocence, and so of the rest. And that Christ spake of reward to be given to the Apostles in this world, is shown by what follows, And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, &c. For if these shall receive an hundred fold in this life, without doubt to the Apostles also was promised a reward in this present life.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

And Jesus said to them: amen I say to you etc. Here he treats of the reward of perfection. And first he presents the reward of the perfection of the apostles; secondly of the perfection of others; thirdly he excludes a certain objection. The second at and every one that has left etc.; the third at and many that are first shall be last etc. He says therefore amen I say to you etc. For because he wished what he had said to be certain, he professes to have spoken the truth by saying amen. And to show that perfection is not in this, go and sell all that you have, but in this, follow me; therefore he says you who have followed me, in the regeneration shall sit on twelve seats etc. Regeneration is twofold. One which is of the spirit, which comes about through grace in baptism, concerning which 1 Peter 1:3: he has regenerated us unto a lively hope. Likewise there is a regeneration of the body: for just as the spirit is regenerated through grace, so also in the resurrection he will raise up our bodies. Philippians 3:21: he will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory. Some explain it of the first regeneration, and punctuate thus: you who have followed me in the regeneration, i.e., you have been regenerated through grace, shall sit etc. Chrysostom does it the same way, but does not punctuate thus; hence he says that he promised them a reward in the present, thus: you who have followed me shall sit. The present Church is the faith of Christ. In this Church there are various states of men. And although all virtues are necessary for salvation, yet one is more praiseworthy in the act of one virtue than of another: some in faith, some in chastity, some in charity. And as in the diverse faithful, so also in the apostles, because Peter was the most fervent zealot of faith, but John excelled in chastity; so those who are fervent in faith are the seat of Peter, in chastity of John, and so of the others. But all are seats of Christ, because all the virtues were in him; therefore he promised them that they would be future pastors of the Church. Otherwise, according to Augustine, it is taken of regeneration, namely for the resurrection: amen I say to you, in the regeneration, i.e., in the resurrection, when they shall be called back according to body and soul, you shall sit, namely on the seat of majesty, i.e., you shall have judiciary power, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, because just as God gave judgment to the Son, so it is given to those who have followed him. But what is it that he says, over the tribes of Israel? Will they not judge others as well? Why then does he say more, over the twelve tribes of Israel? It is understood as the whole people of the faithful of the whole world, because the gentiles entered into the fatness of the olive, and were made sharers in the promise made to the fathers. But those who are unbelievers will not be judged: for Gregory says that some are condemned and not judged, as unbelievers; but some are condemned and judged, as those who believed and were perverse. And, as Jerome sets forth, enemies are condemned differently from one who persevered in the faith; because enemies are condemned in their absence, but the others in their presence. Therefore you shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Because the apostles lived among the Jews, therefore it is said that they will judge the twelve tribes. And how? By comparison, because they had warned them. They might say: how would we believe that you were God, you who were living among us as a mortal? etc. But the Lord will say: you were wise in the law, and you did not believe; these were fishermen, and they believed. Chrysostom asks what great thing was given to the apostles. Was not this given also to the Ninevites and the Queen of the South? Above at 12:41. Chrysostom says that the very manner shows that the authority of judging was given to the apostles, because those judging with authority judge by sitting, while advocates and accusers condemn by standing; therefore, to indicate that the apostles will judge with authority, he says you shall sit. But of the Ninevites he says, the men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it. But here there is a question, because some will be condemned and not judged: so also some will be saved and not judged, as the apostles and apostolic men; but others who are to be saved will be judged, and their merits will be examined. And how will they judge? Some say by comparison. But this is not sufficient, because thus even the Queen of the South would judge. Some say through the judgment of Christ. But this is not sufficient, because thus all the saints would approve. Psalm 57:11: the just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge. Likewise some say by a certain venerable justice, because the just will be raised up in the air to meet Christ, and will be assessors of Christ. But this too is not sufficient, because he says you also shall sit judging. Some say that they will judge as a book judges: for a book judges because the laws are written there which judge that person; just as the hearts of the apostles and the just, who kept the commandments of God, will be a book condemning them. The dead were judged, the books being opened (Apoc 20:12). But it is more than this, because they will exercise something else. Hence in Psalm 149:6: two-edged swords in their hands. How then will they judge? See. There will be a mental judgment, because by divine power it will come about that all his sins will be recalled to each one's memory. Hence Lactantius was deceived who held that the resurrection will take place before the judgment over a thousand years. This therefore will be a mental judgment, because by divine power the things that each one did will be recalled to memory. But it is not unfitting that someone receive from another a certain light, because the angels receive from God, and men from the angels; therefore it is not surprising that men will be enlightened by the apostles, who will be filled with light; therefore they will not only judge, but other just men will also receive a certain light from them. But Christ and the apostles judge differently, because Christ judges with authority, they as promulgators: just as the law was given through angels, so also the execution of judgment will take place through the angels, because behold they are called angels (Job 36:6: judgment shall be given to the poor) who followed justice and left all things. And why will they judge? One reason is that sins are of the world. Hence those who should judge must be from outside the world, and such are the apostles and apostolic men; hence John 15:19: I have chosen you out of the world. Likewise the Philosopher says that the virtuous man is the judge of all men, just as taste is the judge of all things that can be tasted. Just as therefore one who wishes to taste something gives it to one who has a sound taste to taste: so since the virtuous man has a sound taste, he is the rule of all acts; therefore perfect men will judge as a rule. Likewise another reason is that they are strangers to the world, and therefore follow Christ more fervently. These therefore should judge more, because they grow hot over the things to be contemplated; Psalm 38:4: my heart grew hot within me, and in my meditation a fire shall burn. Also because being more accustomed, they are more fervent. Likewise because they were poor and more abject, and the merit of abjection is exaltation; therefore they will be exalted. Therefore he says you shall sit judging etc. But will Judas judge? No, because these promises are always under a condition; therefore the Lord says you who have followed me etc. Hence whoever has followed and persevered will judge, etc. But if these judge, what will Paul do? If the seats are now full, where then is Paul? Augustine says that by twelve is signified universality, which revolves through seven. For the number twelve arises from the combination of seven, because the number seven consists of three and four, and three times four is twelve, or four times three; therefore by this number is signified the universality of the elect.

Commentary on Matthew

Or otherwise; Whosoever shall leave all and follow Christ, he also shall receive those things that were promised to Peter. But if he has not left all, but only those things in special here enumerated, he shall receive manifold, and shall possess eternal life.

And in this world, because for his brethren after the flesh he shall find many brethren in the faith; for parents, all the Bishops and Presbyters; for sons, all that have the age of sons. The Angels also are brethren, and all they are sisters that have offered themselves chaste virgins to Christ, as well they that still continue on earth, as they that now live in heaven. The houses and lands manifold more suppose in the repose of Paradise, and the city of God. And besides all these things they shall possess eternal life.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

“A hundredfold” means that which is incomparably better as regards the future in heaven. When Mark says he will receive a hundredfold “in this age,” we should understand him as speaking about spiritual joys far exceeding earthly ones, inasmuch as they are pledges of future blessings.

Fragment 107

They followed him in the washing of baptism, the sanctification of the faith, in the adoption of the inheritance and in the resurrection from the dead. For this is that regeneration that the apostles received and that the law could not grant. It joined them together above the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, to the glory of the twelve patriarchs. To others following him in scorn of the secular world, he promises the abundance of hundredfold harvests. This hundredfold harvest is the same as that which is filled with heavenly joy at the hundredth sheep. This hundredfold harvest is that which the fruitfulness of the perfected earth will provide. This honor was also destined to the church in Sarah’s name. This honor will be merited through the loss of the law and the faith of the gospel. And thus he says that the first are to be made from the last because the last are made from the first.

Commentary on Matthew 20.4

"For every one," He saith, "that hath forsaken brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, or house, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold in this world, and shall inherit eternal life."

For lest any after having heard the word "ye," should suppose this a thing peculiar to the disciples (I mean now the enjoying the greatest and first honors in the things to come), He extended the word, and spread the promise over the whole earth, and from the things present establishes the things to come also. And to the disciples also at the beginning, when they were in a more imperfect state, He reasoned from the things present. For when He drew them from the sea, and took them from their trade, and commanded them to forsake the ships, He made mention not of Heaven, not of thrones, but of the things here, saying, "I will make you fishers of men;" but when He had wrought them to be of higher views, then after that He discourses of the things to come also.

And this surely came to pass; for when they had left a fishing rod and a net, they possessed with authority the substances of all, the prices of the houses and the lands, and the very bodies of the believers. For often did they choose even to be slain for their sake, as Paul also bears witness to many, when he saith, "If it had been possible ye would have plucked out your eyes, and given them to me." But when He saith, "Every one who hath forsaken wife," He saith not this, for marriages to be broken asunder for nought, but as He saith concerning one's life, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it," not that we should destroy ourselves, neither that while yet here we should part it from the body, but that we should prefer godliness to all things; this too He saith also with respect to wife and brethren.

But He seems to me here to intimate also the persecutions. For since there were many instances both of fathers urging their sons to ungodliness, and wives their husbands; when they command these things, saith He, let them be neither wives nor parents, even as Paul likewise said, "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart."

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 64

And Christ again, in answering this apostle, said not, "If any man raise up the lame," but, "Whosoever hath forsaken houses or lands, shall receive an hundredfold in this world, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Let us also then emulate this man, that we may not be confounded, but may with confidence stand at the judgment seat of Christ; that we may win Him to be with us, even as He was with His disciples. For He will be with us, like as He was with them, if we are willing to follow them, and to be imitators of their life and conversation. For in consequence of these things God crowns, and commends men, not requiring of thee to raise the dead, or to cure the lame. For not these things make one to be like Peter, but the casting away one's goods, for this was the apostles' achievement.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 90

29–30

(Verse 29, 30.) And everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess eternal life. But many who are first shall be last, and the last first. This passage is in agreement with that saying in which the Savior speaks: 'I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.' (Matthew 10:34) Therefore, those who for the sake of the faith of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel have despised all affections, as well as riches and worldly pleasures: they will receive a hundredfold and possess eternal life. In connection with this statement, some introduce the idea of a thousand years after the resurrection, saying that then a hundredfold of all the things we have given up will be restored to us, and eternal life will be given: not understanding that if in other matters there is a worthy promise, in the case of wives there appears a shameful thing; so that one who leaves one for the Lord will receive a hundred in the future. Therefore, this is the meaning: Whoever renounces earthly things for the sake of the Savior will receive heavenly things, which will be suitable and proportionate to the merit of the renunciation, as if a small number were compared to a hundred. Thus the Apostle says, he who has renounced only one house and the small fields of one province: As if having nothing, and possessing all things (2 Corinthians 6:10).

Commentary on Matthew

So the meaning is this: He who has given up the carnal for the Savior will receive the spiritual. In comparison and merit this will be as if a small number were compared with a number in the hundreds. Hence the apostle, who had given up only a house and his small provincial fields, also says, “As having nothing, and yet possessing everything.”

Commentary on Matthew 3.19.30

There are that take occasion from this passage to bring forward the thousand years after the resurrection, and say that then we shall have a hundred fold of the things we have given up, and moreover life eternal. But though the promise be in other things worthy, in the matter of wives it seems to have somewhat shameful, if he who has forsaken one wife for the Lord's sake, shall receive a hundred in the world to come. The meaning is therefore, that he that has forsaken earnal things for the Saviour's sake, shall receive spiritual things, which in a comparison of value are as a hundred to a small number.

And that, And every one that hath forsaken brethren, agrees with that He had said before, I am come to set a man at variance with his father. (Mat. 10:35.) For they who for the faith of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel shall despise all the ties, the riches, and pleasures of this world, they shall receive an hundred fold, and shall possess eternal life.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(De Civ. Dei, xx. 7.) That He says, An hundred fold, is explained by the Apostle, when he says, As having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (2 Cor. 6:10.) For a hundred is sometimes put for the whole universe.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

So that no one should think that what was said applied only to the disciples, he extended the words to cover all those doing likewise. The rest might not receive the same as the disciples; yet instead of their relatives of the flesh they will have kinship with God and fraternity with the saints. In fact, he means the older men and women of the church, who were, as it were, relatives through love, beloved from disposition, who loved them much more than their relatives of the flesh. They also received money from them to spend as they wished, while the future treasures were laid up in store for them. Instead of their fields they will receive paradise. They will receive paradise instead of their fields. They will receive Jerusalem above, the mother of their firstborn, in place of their houses built of stone.

Fragment 221

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. So that no one would think that what was said applied only to the disciples, Christ broadened the promise to include everyone who does likewise. For they will have, instead of family of the flesh, intimacy and brotherhood with God; instead of lands, Paradise; instead of houses of stone, the heavenly Jerusalem; instead of a mother, the venerable mothers in the Church; instead of a father, the priests; instead of a wife, all the faithful women, not in marriage - far from it! - but in affection and spiritual relation and compassionate care for them. The Lord does not bid us simply to separate from our families, but only when they impede our piety. In the same manner, He bids us to despise even our own life and body, but not with the result that we slay ourselves. See how good God is: He not only gives us these good things, but adds to them eternal life. You, then, O reader, hasten to sell your possessions and give to the poor. Possessions are, to the wrathful person, his anger; to the fornicator, his disposition for debauchery; to the resentful person, his remembrance of wrongs. Sell these things and give them to the poor demons who are in want of every good thing. Return the passions to the creators of the passions, and then you will have treasure, which is Christ, in your heaven, that is, in your mind which has been exalted above this world. For he who becomes like the heavenly One has heaven within himself.

Commentary on Matthew

And every one that has left house or brethren etc. Having presented the reward of the apostles, here he presents that of others: and there are questions here. The first is why he promised the apostles nothing temporal, but to others something temporal, because he shall receive a hundredfold etc. And this is clear, because in Mark it says a hundredfold in the present. According to Chrysostom, something temporal was promised to the apostles, because judgment in the Church of God, as was said before. Or otherwise, because each person is attracted according to what he is drawn to. Hence one who has left the world and the things of the world is not attracted by the things of the world; but others, who are tied to worldly things, are attracted by them. Therefore to the apostles, because they had left everything, he promised nothing temporal; but to the others, because they have an attachment to temporal things; therefore to the apostles he promised judgment. Or, according to Origen, what was said, in the regeneration, this is the reward of those who have left all things for Christ. But someone might say: I do not wish to leave all things for your sake, but I will leave one house, or one field, etc. I say that if you leave something, you will have something; but if everything, you will be a judge. But there is another question. He said house, and about this there is no doubt; but he says father or mother etc. He who commands father or mother to be left commands a sin. Likewise he himself commanded that a wife not be put away, that parents be honored. It must be said that in these two things are considered: natural affinity, and this should not be despised, but one should do good to them if they are in need. But sometimes they draw one back from the service of God: and then they are like a scandalizing member, and then that member must be cut off; and therefore he commanded these to be left. Likewise another reason is that the Lord foresaw the time of future persecution, that brother would rise against brother; therefore he wills man to be separated from them. Another question is when he says he shall receive a hundredfold etc., how it is to be understood. Some said that the saints will rise before the judgment for a thousand years, and then Christ will have a complete kingdom: and then he who left a house will have a hundredfold. Jerome rejects this, because he will not have a hundred fathers, etc. Likewise a shameful thing is signified, because he will not have a hundred wives. Therefore Augustine says that it is to be understood with respect to spiritual things. Hence the Lord chose us poor in this world and heirs of the kingdom: hence it is understood of the grace of God, which outweighs everything you leave, and infinitely; therefore he puts the finite for the infinite. Hence he shall receive a hundredfold, i.e., something which is worth a hundredfold. Origen says that it is also to be understood literally. You leave a field; from the providence of God it will come about that you will find many at your service; hence what is said in 2 Corinthians 6:10 will be fitting for them: as having nothing, and possessing all things. Likewise you will find brothers, i.e., all spiritual men. Likewise besides this, eternal life; John 10:27: my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them life everlasting.

Commentary on Matthew

By this He exhorts those that come late to the heavenly word, to haste to ascend to perfection before many whom they see to have grown old in the faith. This sense may also overthrow those that boast to have been educated in Christianity by Christian parents, especially if those parents have filled the Episcopal see, or the office of Priests or Deacons in the Church; and hinder them from desponding who have entertained the Christian doctrines more newly. It has also another meaning, the first, are the Israelites, who become last because of their unbelief; and the Gentiles who were last become first. He is careful to say, Many; for not all who are first shall be last, nor all last first. For before this have many of mankind, who by nature are the last, been made by an angelic life above the Angels; and some Angels who were first have been made last through their sin.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

When He had then raised the spirit of all, and had persuaded them to feel confidence both with respect to themselves and to all the world, He added, that "Many that were first shall be last, and last first." But this although it be spoken also without distinction concerning many others likewise, it is spoken also concerning these men and concerning the Pharisees, who did not believe, even as before also He had said, "Many shall come from east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out."

Then He adds also a parable, as training those who had fallen short to a great forwardness.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 64

It may also be referred in particular to the rich man, who seemed to be first, by his fulfilment of the precepts of the Law, but was made last by his preferring his worldly substance to God. The holy Apostles seemed to be last, but by leaving all they were made first by the grace of humility. There are many who having entered upon good works, fall therefrom, and from having been first, become last.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But because many with what zeal they take up the pursuit of virtue, do not with the same complete it; but either grow cool, or fall away rapidly; it follows, But many that are first shall be last, and the last first.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. Christ is suggesting here the Jews and the Gentiles. For the Jews, who were first, became last, while the Gentiles, who were last, were put first. But so that you might clearly understand and learn what this means, He adds the following parable.

Commentary on Matthew

Consequently he introduces an incidental remark: and many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Those who leave something for Christ, or everything, if they live negligently, will they have this reward? I say no, because they have taken it up imperfectly, and will not be first but last. Or otherwise, because they might say you who have left all things etc., we will judge in this way. Those who were first through pride and exaltation are last. Origen says that it can be understood of those who come to Christ and live tepidly; afterwards others come who are fervent, and by their fervor surpass the others. Or he calls first those born of Christians, who are made last in comparison with others who were from among the gentiles or Jews. Or it can be referred to men or angels; because those who were first in the order of the angels were made last through sin; and the last, i.e., men, will be made first and higher.

Commentary on Matthew

But if you are a poor creature—poisoned by a wretched upbringing in some house full of vulgar jealousies and senseless quarrels—saddled, by no choice of your own, with some loathsome sexual perversion—nagged day in and day out by an inferiority complex that makes you snap at your best friends—do not despair. He knows all about it. You are one of the poor whom He blessed. He knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. Keep on. Do what you can. One day (perhaps in another world, but perhaps far sooner than that) He will fling it on the scrap-heap and give you a new one. And then you may astonish us all—not least yourself: for you have learned your driving in a hard school. (Some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last).

Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 10: Nice People or New Men